Obama's wrong. Mass killings aren't uncommon in other countries

[Care4all]

WHY do these RIGHT WING RAGS have to manipulate the TRUTH in order to CREATE CONTROVERSY?

Shame on you and them tiny....

WHY CUT OFF OBAMA'S QUOTE AND WHAT HE REALLY SAID?

Why?
You have CREATED AND MANUFACTURED the controversy on what he said, can't you see that?

"We do know that once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun," Obama said at the White House. "At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn't happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it."

SHAME on you! Honestly, you should be more careful in what these right wing media outlets say and check them for accuracy before you regurgitate their made up LIES.

Really?

If You Look at This Chart of Top 10 Nations in the World for Mass Shootings One Thing Jumps Out

Might wish to rethink your entire outrage that someone insulted Obama.

yes, really....

Even on this chart, it SHOWS that these type of incidences, (mass murder shooting incidences) DO NOT occur in other westernized nations as frequently as they do in the USA....even if you add up all of the people in the EU countries shown as a population equalizer with the USA population...there are more mass shootings occurrences in the USA than the EU....

Umm... You're wrong, as a percentage of the population we are # 5. Learn how to read a chart sweetie

I love how conservatives cherry pick data

Comparing countries with one or two incidents with a nation that has 38. What is the statistical validity of a sample size of one vs a sample size of 38?

WHY do these RIGHT WING RAGS have to manipulate the TRUTH in order to CREATE CONTROVERSY?

Shame on you and them tiny....

WHY CUT OFF OBAMA'S QUOTE AND WHAT HE REALLY SAID?

Why?
You have CREATED AND MANUFACTURED the controversy on what he said, can't you see that?

"We do know that once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun," Obama said at the White House. "At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn't happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it."

SHAME on you! Honestly, you should be more careful in what these right wing media outlets say and check them for accuracy before you regurgitate their made up LIES.

Really?

If You Look at This Chart of Top 10 Nations in the World for Mass Shootings One Thing Jumps Out

Might wish to rethink your entire outrage that someone insulted Obama.

yes, really....

Even on this chart, it SHOWS that these type of incidences, (mass murder shooting incidences) DO NOT occur in other westernized nations as frequently as they do in the USA....even if you add up all of the people in the EU countries shown as a population equalizer with the USA population...there are more mass shootings occurrences in the USA than the EU....

Umm... You're wrong, as a percentage of the population we are # 5. Learn how to read a chart sweetie

JRoc, your chart is NOT SOURCED, there is no link for how the chart was created and what source was used for the numbers and it is incomplete, where we can't see what the astericks next to 2013 means because the bottom of the chart is cut off, and in addition to this, your chart is limited to a handful of countries....and limited by only including 5 years, and only thru 2013, NOT 2015.... of which we have had NUMEROUS mass shootings since 2013

we also do not know when these countries instituted their gun control restrictions, we don't know what these countries were trending like before they instituted these restrictions and what the rate of mass shootings were before the restrictions were in place...

CHERRY PICKING tells us nothing.

Can you understand that?

During that 4 year period in this country 38 mass murders That means less than 10 per year. Is that an epidemic to you?

Here's the thing.....YOUR CHART is WRONG, and there were 141 mass shootings, NOT 38.

So, 141 VERIFIED Mass Shootings that killed 4 or more people in one incident...

USA TODAY BEHIND THE BLOODSHED THE UNTOLD STORY OF AMERICA S MASS KILLINGS

EDIT!

There are a handful of stabbings in those numbers, I can pull them out easily by using the interactive chart on that site, but the other mass deaths including stabbings look like from a glance could be around 10

 

[Dragonlady]

It is incredible the lengths which Americans will go to deny that mass shootings are a problem.

If 227 people had died in terrorist attacks over a 4 year period, they'd be calling for marshall law to deal with the crisis.

But 227 deaths due to home grown terrorism is just the "price of freedom", as one right winger put it.

 

[Jroc]

hmmmm, i thought this thread was about Obama lying? At least that is how it was framed?

And the truth is, Obama did not lie in his statement, no matter which way you all try to twist and turn it and edit it....PERIOD. Take what he said, in full and not edited, and nothing has been shown that his statement was a lie....

As far as gun control or trying to reduce mass murder shootings, I personally have no idea how this could be done in full, without infringing on law abiding citizen's rights?

But it's possible, with putting our heads together... we could at least improve our situation with the gun shooting murders in the USA, without hurting law abiders with their right to bear arms....

An honest discussion, from both sides of the aisle, analyzing all the pros and cons to different measures is warranted....I'm sure all those murdered and their kin left behind, think so...and we should too....

If it comes out that we can do nothing with this after an honest debate, then so be it....but we should at least put some effort in to trying to come up with a solution to reduce the trend of gun murders...we owe it to the Nation, and people within.

I'm sure you'll get a lot of ideas from the "smart people " that you'd like to follow and you would no doubt advocate vigorously for. You do that all the time here. That's the nature of the leftist, they follow the "smart people" the people who know what's best

And you clearly like to follow stupid people and follow them.

I advocate liberty boy...I don't follow

 

[Jroc]

Really?

Might wish to rethink your entire outrage that someone insulted Obama.

yes, really....

Even on this chart, it SHOWS that these type of incidences, (mass murder shooting incidences) DO NOT occur in other westernized nations as frequently as they do in the USA....even if you add up all of the people in the EU countries shown as a population equalizer with the USA population...there are more mass shootings occurrences in the USA than the EU....

Umm... You're wrong, as a percentage of the population we are # 5. Learn how to read a chart sweetie

I love how conservatives cherry pick data

Comparing countries with one or two incidents with a nation that has 38. What is the statistical validity of a sample size of one vs a sample size of 38?

Really?

Might wish to rethink your entire outrage that someone insulted Obama.

yes, really....

Even on this chart, it SHOWS that these type of incidences, (mass murder shooting incidences) DO NOT occur in other westernized nations as frequently as they do in the USA....even if you add up all of the people in the EU countries shown as a population equalizer with the USA population...there are more mass shootings occurrences in the USA than the EU....

Umm... You're wrong, as a percentage of the population we are # 5. Learn how to read a chart sweetie

JRoc, your chart is NOT SOURCED, there is no link for how the chart was created and what source was used for the numbers and it is incomplete, where we can't see what the astericks next to 2013 means because the bottom of the chart is cut off, and in addition to this, your chart is limited to a handful of countries....and limited by only including 5 years, and only thru 2013, NOT 2015.... of which we have had NUMEROUS mass shootings since 2013

we also do not know when these countries instituted their gun control restrictions, we don't know what these countries were trending like before they instituted these restrictions and what the rate of mass shootings were before the restrictions were in place...

CHERRY PICKING tells us nothing.

Can you understand that?

During that 4 year period in this country 38 mass murders That means less than 10 per year. Is that an epidemic to you?

Here's the thing.....YOUR CHART is WRONG, and there were 141 mass shootings, NOT 38.

So, 141 VERIFIED Mass Shootings that killed 4 or more people in one incident...

USA TODAY BEHIND THE BLOODSHED THE UNTOLD STORY OF AMERICA S MASS KILLINGS

EDIT!

There are a handful of stabbings in those numbers, I can pull them out easily by using the interactive chart on that site, but the other mass deaths including stabbings look like from a glance could be around 10

I'm sure you can

 

[Jroc]

It is incredible the lengths which Americans will go to deny that mass shootings are a problem.

If 227 people had died in terrorist attacks over a 4 year period, they'd be calling for marshall law to deal with the crisis.

But 227 deaths due to home grown terrorism is just the "price of freedom", as one right winger put it.

Mass shootings aren't a problem. It's sad you leftist use this shooting as an avenue to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens to own a fire arm.. I suggest you move to Detroit and put up a gun free zone sign on your door

 

[Skull Pilot]

That body count was 11. Including a policeman. Injured another 11.

And in support of that attack 5 Jews were slaughtered in France, 11 injured.

France is an advanced country is it not?

Yeah, but how often does that happen in France?

We have a couple of these incidents every year now in the US.

France has maybe one a decade...

The USA has five times the population of France, numskull. The figures quoted were mass killings per anum per 100,000 population. Don't you know what that means?

Our murder rate in 2013 was 4.7 per 100000
That's half what it was in the 90s

SO on average a person has a .0047% chance of getting murdered.

Is that really anything to worry about?

Just the dying part...

We're all going to die so knowing that do you really worry about the .0047% chance of being murdered rather than the more likely causes of death?

 

[rightwinger]

That body count was 11. Including a policeman. Injured another 11.

And in support of that attack 5 Jews were slaughtered in France, 11 injured.

France is an advanced country is it not?

Yeah, but how often does that happen in France?

We have a couple of these incidents every year now in the US.

France has maybe one a decade...

The USA has five times the population of France, numskull. The figures quoted were mass killings per anum per 100,000 population. Don't you know what that means?

Our murder rate in 2013 was 4.7 per 100000
That's half what it was in the 90s

SO on average a person has a .0047% chance of getting murdered.

Is that really anything to worry about?

Just the dying part...

We're all going to die so knowing that do you really worry about the .0047% chance of being murdered rather than the more likely causes of death?

Pay no attention to those 30,000 gun deaths a year

After all, it could be much worse

 

[Moonglow]

That body count was 11. Including a policeman. Injured another 11.

And in support of that attack 5 Jews were slaughtered in France, 11 injured.

France is an advanced country is it not?

Yeah, but how often does that happen in France?

We have a couple of these incidents every year now in the US.

France has maybe one a decade...

The USA has five times the population of France, numskull. The figures quoted were mass killings per anum per 100,000 population. Don't you know what that means?

Our murder rate in 2013 was 4.7 per 100000
That's half what it was in the 90s

SO on average a person has a .0047% chance of getting murdered.

Is that really anything to worry about?

Just the dying part...

We're all going to die so knowing that do you really worry about the .0047% chance of being murdered rather than the more likely causes of death?

Just the dying part,,,,

 

[paddymurphy]

Really?

Might wish to rethink your entire outrage that someone insulted Obama.

yes, really....

Even on this chart, it SHOWS that these type of incidences, (mass murder shooting incidences) DO NOT occur in other westernized nations as frequently as they do in the USA....even if you add up all of the people in the EU countries shown as a population equalizer with the USA population...there are more mass shootings occurrences in the USA than the EU....

Umm... You're wrong, as a percentage of the population we are # 5. Learn how to read a chart sweetie

I love how conservatives cherry pick data

Comparing countries with one or two incidents with a nation that has 38. What is the statistical validity of a sample size of one vs a sample size of 38?

Really?

Might wish to rethink your entire outrage that someone insulted Obama.

yes, really....

Even on this chart, it SHOWS that these type of incidences, (mass murder shooting incidences) DO NOT occur in other westernized nations as frequently as they do in the USA....even if you add up all of the people in the EU countries shown as a population equalizer with the USA population...there are more mass shootings occurrences in the USA than the EU....

Umm... You're wrong, as a percentage of the population we are # 5. Learn how to read a chart sweetie

JRoc, your chart is NOT SOURCED, there is no link for how the chart was created and what source was used for the numbers and it is incomplete, where we can't see what the astericks next to 2013 means because the bottom of the chart is cut off, and in addition to this, your chart is limited to a handful of countries....and limited by only including 5 years, and only thru 2013, NOT 2015.... of which we have had NUMEROUS mass shootings since 2013

we also do not know when these countries instituted their gun control restrictions, we don't know what these countries were trending like before they instituted these restrictions and what the rate of mass shootings were before the restrictions were in place...

CHERRY PICKING tells us nothing.

Can you understand that?

During that 4 year period in this country 38 mass murders That means less than 10 per year. Is that an epidemic to you?

Here's the thing.....YOUR CHART is WRONG, and there were 141 mass shootings, NOT 38.

So, 141 VERIFIED Mass Shootings that killed 4 or more people in one incident...

USA TODAY BEHIND THE BLOODSHED THE UNTOLD STORY OF AMERICA S MASS KILLINGS

EDIT!

There are a handful of stabbings in those numbers, I can pull them out easily by using the interactive chart on that site, but the other mass deaths including stabbings look like from a glance could be around 10

And most mass shootings took place in places where there was no ban on guns, putting to lie the claim that these things are enabled by gun free zones.

 

[hortysir]

yes, really....

Even on this chart, it SHOWS that these type of incidences, (mass murder shooting incidences) DO NOT occur in other westernized nations as frequently as they do in the USA....even if you add up all of the people in the EU countries shown as a population equalizer with the USA population...there are more mass shootings occurrences in the USA than the EU....

Umm... You're wrong, as a percentage of the population we are # 5. Learn how to read a chart sweetie

I love how conservatives cherry pick data

Comparing countries with one or two incidents with a nation that has 38. What is the statistical validity of a sample size of one vs a sample size of 38?

yes, really....

Even on this chart, it SHOWS that these type of incidences, (mass murder shooting incidences) DO NOT occur in other westernized nations as frequently as they do in the USA....even if you add up all of the people in the EU countries shown as a population equalizer with the USA population...there are more mass shootings occurrences in the USA than the EU....

Umm... You're wrong, as a percentage of the population we are # 5. Learn how to read a chart sweetie

JRoc, your chart is NOT SOURCED, there is no link for how the chart was created and what source was used for the numbers and it is incomplete, where we can't see what the astericks next to 2013 means because the bottom of the chart is cut off, and in addition to this, your chart is limited to a handful of countries....and limited by only including 5 years, and only thru 2013, NOT 2015.... of which we have had NUMEROUS mass shootings since 2013

we also do not know when these countries instituted their gun control restrictions, we don't know what these countries were trending like before they instituted these restrictions and what the rate of mass shootings were before the restrictions were in place...

CHERRY PICKING tells us nothing.

Can you understand that?

During that 4 year period in this country 38 mass murders That means less than 10 per year. Is that an epidemic to you?

Here's the thing.....YOUR CHART is WRONG, and there were 141 mass shootings, NOT 38.

So, 141 VERIFIED Mass Shootings that killed 4 or more people in one incident...

USA TODAY BEHIND THE BLOODSHED THE UNTOLD STORY OF AMERICA S MASS KILLINGS

EDIT!

There are a handful of stabbings in those numbers, I can pull them out easily by using the interactive chart on that site, but the other mass deaths including stabbings look like from a glance could be around 10

And most mass shootings took place in places where there was no ban on guns, putting to lie the claim that these things are enabled by gun free zones.

Really?
Anything to substantiate that claim?

Ft Hood
Aurora
Charleston
Oslo
Sandy Hook

That's just off the top of my head, but feeel free to Google all these places you speak of

 

[paddymurphy]

Umm... You're wrong, as a percentage of the population we are # 5. Learn how to read a chart sweetie

I love how conservatives cherry pick data

Comparing countries with one or two incidents with a nation that has 38. What is the statistical validity of a sample size of one vs a sample size of 38?

Umm... You're wrong, as a percentage of the population we are # 5. Learn how to read a chart sweetie

JRoc, your chart is NOT SOURCED, there is no link for how the chart was created and what source was used for the numbers and it is incomplete, where we can't see what the astericks next to 2013 means because the bottom of the chart is cut off, and in addition to this, your chart is limited to a handful of countries....and limited by only including 5 years, and only thru 2013, NOT 2015.... of which we have had NUMEROUS mass shootings since 2013

we also do not know when these countries instituted their gun control restrictions, we don't know what these countries were trending like before they instituted these restrictions and what the rate of mass shootings were before the restrictions were in place...

CHERRY PICKING tells us nothing.

Can you understand that?

During that 4 year period in this country 38 mass murders That means less than 10 per year. Is that an epidemic to you?

Here's the thing.....YOUR CHART is WRONG, and there were 141 mass shootings, NOT 38.

So, 141 VERIFIED Mass Shootings that killed 4 or more people in one incident...

USA TODAY BEHIND THE BLOODSHED THE UNTOLD STORY OF AMERICA S MASS KILLINGS

EDIT!

There are a handful of stabbings in those numbers, I can pull them out easily by using the interactive chart on that site, but the other mass deaths including stabbings look like from a glance could be around 10

And most mass shootings took place in places where there was no ban on guns, putting to lie the claim that these things are enabled by gun free zones.

Really?
Anything to substantiate that claim?

Ft Hood
Aurora
Charleston
Oslo
Sandy Hook

That's just off the top of my head, but feeel free to Google all these places you speak of

"Among the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns. To the contrary, in many of the cases there was clearly another motive for the choice of location. For example, 20 were workplace shootings, most of which involved perpetrators who felt wronged by employers and colleagues. Last September, when a troubled man working at a sign manufacturer in Minneapolis was told he would be let go, he pulled out a 9mm Glock and killed six people and injured another before putting a bullet in his own head. Similar tragedies unfolded at a beer distributor in Connecticut in 2010 and at a plastics factory in Kentucky in 2008.

Or consider the 12 school shootings we documented, in which all but one of the killers had personal ties to the school they struck. FBI investigators learned from one witness, for example, that the mass shooter in Newtown had long been fixatedon Sandy Hook Elementary School, which he'd once attended.

Or take the man who opened fire in suburban Milwaukee last August: Are we to believe that a white supremacist targeted the Sikh temple there not because it was filled with members of a religious minority he despised, but because it was a place that allegedly* banned firearms?

Thirty-six of the killers committed suicide at or near the crime scene. These were not people whose priority was identifying the safest place to attack.
Proponents of this argument also ignore that the majority of mass shootings are murder-suicides. Thirty-six of the killers we studied took their own livesat or near the crime scene, while seven others died in police shootouts they had no hope of surviving (a.k.a. "suicide by cop"). These were not people whose priority was identifying the safest place to attack.

No less a fantasy is the idea that gun-free zones prevent armed civilians from saving the day. Not one of the 62 mass shootings we documented was stopped this way. Veteran FBI, ATF, and police officials say that an armed citizen opening fire against an attacker in a panic-stricken movie theater or shopping mall is very likely to make matters worse. Law enforcement agents train rigorously for stopping active shooters, they say, a task that requires extraordinary skills honed under acute duress. In cases in Washington and Texas in 2005, would-be heroes who tried to take action with licensed firearms were gravely wounded and killed. In the Tucson mass shooting in 2011, an armed citizen admitted to coming within a split second of gunning down the wrong person—one of the bystanders who'd helped tackle and subdue the actual killer."

The NRA Myth of Gun-Free Zones Mother Jones

 

[hortysir]

Mother Jones is a hysterical site.....in every sense of the word.
While I agree that"gun free zones" may not be the motive behind the shootings, you'd have to be an idiot to think that bit of information wasn't a contributing factor in the decision making process

 

[paddymurphy]

Mother Jones is a hysterical site.....in every sense of the word.
While I agree that"gun free zones" may not be the motive behind the shootings, you'd have to be an idiot to think that bit of information wasn't a contributing factor in the decision making process

So, since you cannot prove that the data is wrong, you simply attack the source. Mass shootings are any with more than 4 deaths. The vast majority of those did not take place in gun free zones. In fact, most took place in homes and involved family members. Of those that did take place in places where guns were not allowed, you cannot produce any evidence whatsoever that the killer chose that place because guns were not supposed to be present. They targeted places where the victims they wanted to kill would be present. Many involved former employees going to their former place of employment and killing their bosses and co-workers. To suggest that the selected that location because is was gun free rather than because that is where the people the killer wanted to kill would be found is idiotic. The Columbine killers chose their high school because it was a gun free zone? Only a moron could think that.

 

[hortysir]

Mother Jones is a hysterical site.....in every sense of the word.
While I agree that"gun free zones" may not be the motive behind the shootings, you'd have to be an idiot to think that bit of information wasn't a contributing factor in the decision making process

So, since you cannot prove that the data is wrong, you simply attack the source. Mass shootings are any with more than 4 deaths. The vast majority of those did not take place in gun free zones. In fact, most took place in homes and involved family members. Of those that did take place in places where guns were not allowed, you cannot produce any evidence whatsoever that the killer chose that place because guns were not supposed to be present. They targeted places where the victims they wanted to kill would be present. Many involved former employees going to their former place of employment and killing their bosses and co-workers. To suggest that the selected that location because is was gun free rather than because that is where the people the killer wanted to kill would be found is idiotic. The Columbine killers chose their high school because it was a gun free zone? Only a moron could think that.

Anytime Mother Jones is cited, I laugh. Sorry.
But you're right.
These places weren't chosen because they were gun free zones.
All I said was that had to be part of the thought process when planning on attacking these people.
If given a choice of killing someone at their house, where they may have guns, or at the workplace, where they can't carry.....which would they choose?

 

[paddymurphy]

Mother Jones is a hysterical site.....in every sense of the word.
While I agree that"gun free zones" may not be the motive behind the shootings, you'd have to be an idiot to think that bit of information wasn't a contributing factor in the decision making process

So, since you cannot prove that the data is wrong, you simply attack the source. Mass shootings are any with more than 4 deaths. The vast majority of those did not take place in gun free zones. In fact, most took place in homes and involved family members. Of those that did take place in places where guns were not allowed, you cannot produce any evidence whatsoever that the killer chose that place because guns were not supposed to be present. They targeted places where the victims they wanted to kill would be present. Many involved former employees going to their former place of employment and killing their bosses and co-workers. To suggest that the selected that location because is was gun free rather than because that is where the people the killer wanted to kill would be found is idiotic. The Columbine killers chose their high school because it was a gun free zone? Only a moron could think that.

Anytime Mother Jones is cited, I laugh. Sorry.
But you're right.
These places weren't chosen because they were gun free zones.
All I said was that had to be part of the thought process when planning on attacking these people.
If given a choice of killing someone at their house, where they may have guns, or at the workplace, where they can't carry.....which would they choose?

First, most mass killings did not take place in gun free zones. Second, many took place where there were armed guards and that made little difference. Third, you cannot produce any evidence indicating that any of the killers considered that the place they wanted to kill was a gun free zone. The fact of the matter is that given how few Americans who actually carry concealed weapons, despite the right to do so, most places are gun free zones, regardless of whether they are so by law.

 

[rightwinger]

Mother Jones is a hysterical site.....in every sense of the word.
While I agree that"gun free zones" may not be the motive behind the shootings, you'd have to be an idiot to think that bit of information wasn't a contributing factor in the decision making process

So, since you cannot prove that the data is wrong, you simply attack the source. Mass shootings are any with more than 4 deaths. The vast majority of those did not take place in gun free zones. In fact, most took place in homes and involved family members. Of those that did take place in places where guns were not allowed, you cannot produce any evidence whatsoever that the killer chose that place because guns were not supposed to be present. They targeted places where the victims they wanted to kill would be present. Many involved former employees going to their former place of employment and killing their bosses and co-workers. To suggest that the selected that location because is was gun free rather than because that is where the people the killer wanted to kill would be found is idiotic. The Columbine killers chose their high school because it was a gun free zone? Only a moron could think that.

Anytime Mother Jones is cited, I laugh. Sorry.
But you're right.
These places weren't chosen because they were gun free zones.
All I said was that had to be part of the thought process when planning on attacking these people.
If given a choice of killing someone at their house, where they may have guns, or at the workplace, where they can't carry.....which would they choose?

First, most mass killings did not take place in gun free zones. Second, many took place where there were armed guards and that made little difference. Third, you cannot produce any evidence indicating that any of the killers considered that the place they wanted to kill was a gun free zone. The fact of the matter is that given how few Americans who actually carry concealed weapons, despite the right to do so, most places are gun free zones, regardless of whether they are so by law.

The fact that there may be guns in the crowd seems irrelevant. Most of these shooters have death wishes anyway. They are prepared to die
Somebody shooting just adds to the drama

 

[hortysir]

Mother Jones is a hysterical site.....in every sense of the word.
While I agree that"gun free zones" may not be the motive behind the shootings, you'd have to be an idiot to think that bit of information wasn't a contributing factor in the decision making process

So, since you cannot prove that the data is wrong, you simply attack the source. Mass shootings are any with more than 4 deaths. The vast majority of those did not take place in gun free zones. In fact, most took place in homes and involved family members. Of those that did take place in places where guns were not allowed, you cannot produce any evidence whatsoever that the killer chose that place because guns were not supposed to be present. They targeted places where the victims they wanted to kill would be present. Many involved former employees going to their former place of employment and killing their bosses and co-workers. To suggest that the selected that location because is was gun free rather than because that is where the people the killer wanted to kill would be found is idiotic. The Columbine killers chose their high school because it was a gun free zone? Only a moron could think that.

Anytime Mother Jones is cited, I laugh. Sorry.
But you're right.
These places weren't chosen because they were gun free zones.
All I said was that had to be part of the thought process when planning on attacking these people.
If given a choice of killing someone at their house, where they may have guns, or at the workplace, where they can't carry.....which would they choose?

First, most mass killings did not take place in gun free zones. Second, many took place where there were armed guards and that made little difference. Third, you cannot produce any evidence indicating that any of the killers considered that the place they wanted to kill was a gun free zone. The fact of the matter is that given how few Americans who actually carry concealed weapons, despite the right to do so, most places are gun free zones, regardless of whether they are so by law.

The fact that there may be guns in the crowd seems irrelevant. Most of these shooters have death wishes anyway. They are prepared to die
Somebody shooting just adds to the drama

We may disagree on a lot, but not this

 

[tinydancer]

Mother Jones is a hysterical site.....in every sense of the word.
While I agree that"gun free zones" may not be the motive behind the shootings, you'd have to be an idiot to think that bit of information wasn't a contributing factor in the decision making process

So, since you cannot prove that the data is wrong, you simply attack the source. Mass shootings are any with more than 4 deaths. The vast majority of those did not take place in gun free zones. In fact, most took place in homes and involved family members. Of those that did take place in places where guns were not allowed, you cannot produce any evidence whatsoever that the killer chose that place because guns were not supposed to be present. They targeted places where the victims they wanted to kill would be present. Many involved former employees going to their former place of employment and killing their bosses and co-workers. To suggest that the selected that location because is was gun free rather than because that is where the people the killer wanted to kill would be found is idiotic. The Columbine killers chose their high school because it was a gun free zone? Only a moron could think that.

Anytime Mother Jones is cited, I laugh. Sorry.
But you're right.
These places weren't chosen because they were gun free zones.
All I said was that had to be part of the thought process when planning on attacking these people.
If given a choice of killing someone at their house, where they may have guns, or at the workplace, where they can't carry.....which would they choose?

I was reading a criminologists report ( I will get the link later) and he'd been studying mass murders since the 80's when "going postal" became a descriptive phrase for mass murders.

He was stressing though that the true mass murderer never went "postal" but instead had researched their kill zones thoroughly as to make certain that there would be little or no resistance.

That's bullshit from Mother Jones.

 

[tinydancer]

Mother Jones is a hysterical site.....in every sense of the word.
While I agree that"gun free zones" may not be the motive behind the shootings, you'd have to be an idiot to think that bit of information wasn't a contributing factor in the decision making process

So, since you cannot prove that the data is wrong, you simply attack the source. Mass shootings are any with more than 4 deaths. The vast majority of those did not take place in gun free zones. In fact, most took place in homes and involved family members. Of those that did take place in places where guns were not allowed, you cannot produce any evidence whatsoever that the killer chose that place because guns were not supposed to be present. They targeted places where the victims they wanted to kill would be present. Many involved former employees going to their former place of employment and killing their bosses and co-workers. To suggest that the selected that location because is was gun free rather than because that is where the people the killer wanted to kill would be found is idiotic. The Columbine killers chose their high school because it was a gun free zone? Only a moron could think that.

Anytime Mother Jones is cited, I laugh. Sorry.
But you're right.
These places weren't chosen because they were gun free zones.
All I said was that had to be part of the thought process when planning on attacking these people.
If given a choice of killing someone at their house, where they may have guns, or at the workplace, where they can't carry.....which would they choose?

First, most mass killings did not take place in gun free zones. Second, many took place where there were armed guards and that made little difference. Third, you cannot produce any evidence indicating that any of the killers considered that the place they wanted to kill was a gun free zone. The fact of the matter is that given how few Americans who actually carry concealed weapons, despite the right to do so, most places are gun free zones, regardless of whether they are so by law.

Oh geeze louise get a grip. Anyone who's planning a mass murder is going to find a place of "least resistance".

How many mass murders take place at a gun show for crying out loud?

 

[Redfish]

Mother Jones is a hysterical site.....in every sense of the word.
While I agree that"gun free zones" may not be the motive behind the shootings, you'd have to be an idiot to think that bit of information wasn't a contributing factor in the decision making process

So, since you cannot prove that the data is wrong, you simply attack the source. Mass shootings are any with more than 4 deaths. The vast majority of those did not take place in gun free zones. In fact, most took place in homes and involved family members. Of those that did take place in places where guns were not allowed, you cannot produce any evidence whatsoever that the killer chose that place because guns were not supposed to be present. They targeted places where the victims they wanted to kill would be present. Many involved former employees going to their former place of employment and killing their bosses and co-workers. To suggest that the selected that location because is was gun free rather than because that is where the people the killer wanted to kill would be found is idiotic. The Columbine killers chose their high school because it was a gun free zone? Only a moron could think that.

Anytime Mother Jones is cited, I laugh. Sorry.
But you're right.
These places weren't chosen because they were gun free zones.
All I said was that had to be part of the thought process when planning on attacking these people.
If given a choice of killing someone at their house, where they may have guns, or at the workplace, where they can't carry.....which would they choose?

First, most mass killings did not take place in gun free zones. Second, many took place where there were armed guards and that made little difference. Third, you cannot produce any evidence indicating that any of the killers considered that the place they wanted to kill was a gun free zone. The fact of the matter is that given how few Americans who actually carry concealed weapons, despite the right to do so, most places are gun free zones, regardless of whether they are so by law.

The fact that there may be guns in the crowd seems irrelevant. Most of these shooters have death wishes anyway. They are prepared to die
Somebody shooting just adds to the drama

well if one of those church members had a gun, the death toll might have been less than 9 and the country might have been spared the millions that will be spent trying the racist asshole.

and, if the asshole had known that some of those church members were armed he might not have targeted them.

my what-if is a valid as yours.