350 mass shooting so far this year, but the right only mention one

[Indofred]

Are Australia's gun laws the solution for the US? - BBC News

There have been over 350 mass shooting in the US of A so far this year, all either totally ignored or excused by the US right wing, save the one of last week.
There was absolutely nothing different about this one except the killers were Muslims.

No one from the right has called for anyone to be vetted, or any group to be refused sales of firearms until this incident, then we see a whole group assumed guilty because two of that group murdered.

Why were well over 300 mass murders pretty much ignored by the right, but one get so much attention?
Should the Australian 'cure' be rolled out in the US?

This being CDZ, I'm rather hoping for intelligent answers and arguments.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Your claim was debunked long ago....

Fact Check: Washington Post Spreads Debunked Mass-Shooting Stats - Breitbart

 

[Pete7469]

The CDZ zone must be like the "safe space" for bed wetters to post asinine threads and avoid being ridiculed for it.

That shouldn't apply when the thread title is itself an attack.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Should the Australian 'cure' be rolled out in the US?
you are talking about taking guns from 300 million people fred,not 20 million....might be kind of impossible....

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Should the Australian 'cure' be rolled out in the US?
you are talking about taking guns from 300 million people fred,not 20 million....might be kind of impossible....

The blow back would boggle the mind

 

[Auld Phart]

Are Australia's gun laws the solution for the US? - BBC News

There have been over 350 mass shooting in the US of A so far this year, all either totally ignored or excused by the US right wing, save the one of last week.
There was absolutely nothing different about this one except the killers were Muslims.

No one from the right has called for anyone to be vetted, or any group to be refused sales of firearms until this incident, then we see a whole group assumed guilty because two of that group murdered.

Why were well over 300 mass murders pretty much ignored by the right, but one get so much attention?
Should the Australian 'cure' be rolled out in the US?

This being CDZ, I'm rather hoping for intelligent answers and arguments.

There have been over 350 mass shooting in the US of A so far this year,

Depends on who you go by:

• The Mass Shooting Tracker defines a mass shooting as an event in which four or more people were shot.

• USA Today tracks mass killings, in which four or more people were killed.

• Mother Jones tracks mass killings in which four or more people were killed but excludes "gang activity, armed robbery, or domestic violence."

Mother Jones says there has only been 4?

When did La Pierre buy it?

 

[Two Thumbs]

The CDZ zone must be like the "safe space" for bed wetters to post asinine threads and avoid being ridiculed for it.

That shouldn't apply when the thread title is itself an attack.

I've mentioned that before.

clear lies or flame threads get the op protected from the verbal beating he has coming.

and the first reply should send this non-sense to the rubber room

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I found this on the internet...I dont know if it's true but it sure makes obama look really bad if it is.

Reagan (11 mass shootings)
Bush Sr (12 mass shootings)
Clinton (23 mass shootings)
Bush Jr (16 mass shootings)
Obama (162 mass shootings)

 

[westwall]

Not an Appropriate CDZ Thread. Moved to General Discussion.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Are Australia's gun laws the solution for the US? - BBC News

There have been over 350 mass shooting in the US of A so far this year, all either totally ignored or excused by the US right wing, save the one of last week.
There was absolutely nothing different about this one except the killers were Muslims.

No one from the right has called for anyone to be vetted, or any group to be refused sales of firearms until this incident, then we see a whole group assumed guilty because two of that group murdered.

Why were well over 300 mass murders pretty much ignored by the right, but one get so much attention?
Should the Australian 'cure' be rolled out in the US?

This being CDZ, I'm rather hoping for intelligent answers and arguments.

How is mass shooting defined?

NM, see Will's thing a ways above. Like USA Today's definition of 4+ killings, but including gang, robberies, etc.

 

[Pete7469]

 

[320 Years of History]

Your claim was debunked long ago....

Fact Check: Washington Post Spreads Debunked Mass-Shooting Stats - Breitbart

??? Puh-lease....by Mother Jones doesn't even adhere to their own definition of what qualifies as a "mass shooting" incident.

Our focus is on public mass shootings in which the motive appeared to be indiscriminate killing. We used the following criteria to identify cases:

• The shooter took the lives of at least four people. An FBI crime classification 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.
• 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.) Crimes primarily related to gang activity, armed robbery, or domestic violence in homes are not included.
• If the shooter died or was hurt from injuries sustained during the incident, he is included in the total victim count. (But we have excluded many cases in which there were three fatalities and the shooter also died, per the above FBI criterion.)
• We included a handful of cases also known as "spree killings"—cases in which the killings occurred in more than one location over a short period of time, that otherwise fit the above criteria.

Mother Jones, though they occasionally offer insightful ideas, aren't exactly rigorous in their tabulation and analysis of data. In short, Mother Jones' methodology for defining what events are or are not "mass shootings" (and thus which events appear on their pivot table) allows them to include or disinclude whatever they want. As a result, I'm disinclined to accept their quantification of shooting events, no matter what I think of the observations they offer in response to the occurrence of mass shootings. Mother Jones's figures would strike me as credible were they to adhere objectively to what they define as "mass shooting."

I suspect the variation in "mass shooting" quantities cited by various organization results from the absence of a clear and universally accepted definition of what one is. Given the lack of concurrence on what a "mass shooting" is, there's nothing to specifically "debunk." One can't very well say "no, there weren't X many 'mass shootings' " if what constitutes a mass shooting isn't agreed upon by all parties. Neither, of course, can one attest to how many there were. It's disingenuous to make either claim, but it's even more so to make either claim or discuss either and not also note the ambiguity of the term itself. Doing that is little more than spewing rhetoric, rhetoric that does nothing to help clarify the matter to any interested audience members.

AS for The Washington Post's quantification of 355 "mass shootings," I don't know if I agree or disagree with them. They haven't given any source for where they gathered the figures and events to which they refer.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

If there was that many mass shootings the loony left would be in a perpetual frenzy....oh wait

 

[Indofred]

but no one will answer the question.

Why does the right defend mass shootings until a Muslim carries one out?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

but no one will answer the question.

Why does the right defend mass shootings until a Muslim carries one out?

Perhaps you can tell us why YOU a Muslim do not criticize but instead defend all the terror attacks all the war moves and dead by Muslims? I mean if as you claim republicans have defended mass shootings then you have also defended every terror attack and every attack by ISIS and AQ.

 

[Two Thumbs]

but no one will answer the question.

Why does the right defend mass shootings until a Muslim carries one out?

No one defends mass shootings you lying pile of filth.

Not one person.

That's the answer to your fucked up question.

Now do the world a favor and stop producing CO2

 

[2aguy]

but no one will answer the question.

Why does the right defend mass shootings until a Muslim carries one out?

who defends mass shootings twit.......? You are the ones who create them by forcing gun free zones on everyone...that blood is on your hands, not ours...