Why mass shootings don't lead to more gun control

[History]

Mass shootings are the price we pay for our second amendment rights

Nobody gives a shit if a few people get shot

They proved that in Norway...

Oh, wait, maybe not.

One word...
Chicago

 

[Geaux4it]

Mass shootings are the price we pay for our second amendment rights

Nobody gives a shit if a few people get shot

They proved that in Norway...

Oh, wait, maybe not.

One word...
Chicago

 

[rightwinger]

Mass shootings are the price we pay for our second amendment rights

Nobody gives a shit if a few people get shot

They proved that in Norway...

Oh, wait, maybe not.

Yea.....let me count

Norway had .......ummmm.......ummmmm.....ONE
Tne US had um.....um.........THIRTY

 

[NightFox]

... just off the top of my head I think the various STATES involved wacked somewhere between 20 and 30 million civilians just in WW II alone....... it'll be a while before armed private citizens match that total.

If you want to fire up a good mass killing spree the best place to start is in a National Capital, that's where the real expert mass murderers reside.

The word murder has a specific meaning, war isn't murder.

Why? because it's sanctioned by the state? apparently you're in the crowd that believes that those controlling the levers of state power operate under a different set of morals and ethics than the rest of humanity.

And where do you get 30 million from? .

Quick and dirty totals -> World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pay particular attention to the "civilian deaths by military activity and crimes against humanity" column.

You're the kind of guy that gives the left plenty of ammo

If I actually cared what "the left" thought I suppose that might be worrisome......

 

[Spiderman]

Mass shootings are the price we pay for our second amendment rights

Nobody gives a shit if a few people get shot

Tell me why are you concentrating on the least likely way to get killed by a gun rather than the most likely way?

Mass shootings for all their media appeal and knee jerk reaction potential are responsible for less than 1% of all murders committed with guns.

 

[Jughead]

Only in liberal land do idiots think more gun control laws, piled on top of already existing gun control laws, will some how, magically, convince bad guys to suddenly see the light and obey all those laws.

Way way beyond stupid but the low info dopes swallow the b.s. time and time again.

I agree. Criminals do not respect existing gun laws now (for instance felons are not allowed to carry guns), yet liberals somehow think any new gun laws will be respected by criminals.

What new gun laws will do, it will stack the odds in favor of the criminal. More gun control means less law abiding persons will be willing to go through the red tape of acquiring firearms. So the proportion of guns owned by criminals versus law abiding folks will shift towards the criminal. This will no doubt result in higher crime since criminals know their chances of being stopped by an armed civilian will be significantly less.

 

[eflatminor]

Mass shootings are the price we pay for our second amendment rights

Nobody gives a shit if a few people get shot

They proved that in Norway...

Oh, wait, maybe not.

Yea.....let me count

Norway had .......ummmm.......ummmmm.....ONE
Tne US had um.....um.........THIRTY

The last stat I found in the US was 2012 (and it was 16, not 30 mass shootings), in which 88 people were killed. 77 were killed in Norway...pretty damn close DESPITE their virtual ban on civilian firearm ownership.

Do we have more mass shootings than ultra wealthy, ultra homogenized, no racial diversity Norway? Yes we do. If you took the geographic portion of the US that mimicked Norway demographically, would we have more mass shootings? Probably not...certainly not the year that guy went crazy in Norway.

Point is, even countries that ban guns have murders and high violent crime rates, often higher than the US. Ergo, it's not the guns, it's the assholes pulling the trigger.

 

[History]

Murder is illegal right??
why does it still happen

Heroin, Crack, Cocaine, Meth are illegal right??
how do people still get possession of it

Illegal Immigration is obviously illegal right??
why do they keep showing up

Guns are banned in Chicago right??
so why are there deaths from gun violence still

Liberals can't ever argue with facts.. They just post a bunch of blasphemy that you are supposed to believe.

 

[rightwinger]

Mass shootings are the price we pay for our second amendment rights

Nobody gives a shit if a few people get shot

Tell me why are you concentrating on the least likely way to get killed by a gun rather than the most likely way?

Mass shootings for all their media appeal and knee jerk reaction potential are responsible for less than 1% of all murders committed with guns.

We also went through our period of assassinations not to mention our 13,000 murders a year. Not to mention suicides and accidents

A small price to pay for our second amendment

 

[blackhawk]

How would more gun control laws stop people from getting guns illegally? How would increased background checks stop those with no criminal record or history of mental illness from buying a gun and going on a rampage?

 

[History]

Thats a question that liberals just can't answer, no matter how many times you ask them.. They become crickets in the field when you show them true statistics and ask hardcore questions.

 

[Spiderman]

Mass shootings are the price we pay for our second amendment rights

Nobody gives a shit if a few people get shot

Tell me why are you concentrating on the least likely way to get killed by a gun rather than the most likely way?

Mass shootings for all their media appeal and knee jerk reaction potential are responsible for less than 1% of all murders committed with guns.

We also went through our period of assassinations not to mention our 13,000 murders a year. Not to mention suicides and accidents

A small price to pay for our second amendment

Suicides don't count neither do accidents.

Neither are illegal.

Let's deal with the illegal use of guns first shall we?

 

[eflatminor]

Tell me why are you concentrating on the least likely way to get killed by a gun rather than the most likely way?

Mass shootings for all their media appeal and knee jerk reaction potential are responsible for less than 1% of all murders committed with guns.

We also went through our period of assassinations not to mention our 13,000 murders a year. Not to mention suicides and accidents

A small price to pay for our second amendment

Suicides don't count neither do accidents.

Neither are illegal.

Let's deal with the illegal use of guns first shall we?

Don't hold your breath.

Suicides...please! As though firearms are to blame for that. We'll just overlook the fact that Japan, despite it's ban on civilian owned firearms, has the EXACT SAME murder/suicide rate as the US. Identical!

They won't deal with the illegal use of guns either. They can't deal with the truth. Our murder rate ranks us in the 103rd spot last I checked. That's right, over 100 countries have higher murder rates than the US despite those countries banning firearms. But to their deluded minds, it's still the guns that are to blame. Baffling the lack of logic and reason.

They also neglect to consider that these murders overwhelmingly occur in a few small demographic areas of larges cities, which just happen to have the toughest gun control laws in the nation. No, to their minds, the thugs are travelling to Wyoming to buy guns legally before heading back to South LA to pop a cap in someone's ass. Try to ask them why the murder rate is practically non existed in the majority of the country when firearms are most plentiful and gun laws most lax...they'll avoid the subject, every time and probably call you a racist.

And of course, nobody ever gets assassinated in countries without 2nd amendment-like protections...

No, you'll not get them to deal with anything approaching reality.

 

[Ame®icano]

There are over 400 children (age 0-14) death by drowning in US annually.

20% of drowning deaths involving children occur in public pools with certified lifeguards present.

Of all preschoolers who drown, 70% are in the care of one or both parents at the time of the drowning and 75% are missing from sight for five minutes or less.

We need stricter "pool control". Or better, outlaw all the pools.

 

[HimlerAspartame]

Why should they do anything?
Your all happy enough to go round shooting each other,
You've got the right to own guns,
Why not go round the neighbours and shoot them?
Make yer famous!
And of course, they won't do anything because,
IT'S KEEPING THE POPULATION DOWN.

 

[Iceweasel]

Why should they do anything?
Your all happy enough to go round shooting each other,
You've got the right to own guns,
Why not go round the neighbours and shoot them?
Make yer famous!
And of course, they won't do anything because,
IT'S KEEPING THE POPULATION DOWN.

Actually, the best thing about it is it keeps people like you from moving here.

 

[HimlerAspartame]

Why should they do anything?
Your all happy enough to go round shooting each other,
You've got the right to own guns,
Why not go round the neighbours and shoot them?
Make yer famous!
And of course, they won't do anything because,
IT'S KEEPING THE POPULATION DOWN.

Actually, the best thing about it is it keeps people like you from moving here.

I'm already here,
Moved here just before WW2 finished.
And I know where you live.

 

[Iceweasel]

Actually, the best thing about it is it keeps people like you from moving here.

I'm already here,
Moved here just before WW2 finished.
And I know where you live.

Cool, me and Captain Mossberg will be waitin' for ya.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

America sells billions of dollars of weapons all over the world every year and then everyone wonders why so many people get shot.

Federation of American Scientists :: The Arms Sales Monitoring Project

The only thing I wonder is what makes you think this is in any way relevant to the OP. The only thing I can conclude is that you can't read.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Interesting paper that actually worked not to have an agenda.

[FONT=Myriad Roman, Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif;]The pattern is a painfully familiar one. A gunman opens fire in a public place, killing many innocent victims. After this tragedy, support for gun control surges. With a closing window for reform, politicians and activists quickly push for new gun laws. But as time elapses, support decreases. Soon enough, the passions fade, and society returns to the status quo.

We call this paradigm "the shooting cycle." This article provides the first qualitative and quantitative analysis of the shooting cycle, and explains how and why people and governments react to mass shootings.

This article proceeds in five parts. First, we bring empirical clarity to the debate over mass shootings, and show that contrary to popular opinion, they are fairly rare, and are not occurring more frequently. Second, relying on cognitive biases such as the availability heuristic, substitution effect, and cultural cognition theory, we demonstrate why the perception of risk and reaction to these rare and unfamiliar events are heightened. Third we chronicle the various stages of the shooting cycle: tragedy, introspection, action, divergence, and return to the status quo. During the earlier stages, emotional capture sets in, allowing politicians and activists to garner support for reform. But, after the spike, soon support for reform fades, and regresses to the mean. Fifth, with this framework, we view the year following the horrific massacre in Newtown through the lens of the shooting cycle. We conclude by addressing whether the shooting cycle can be broken.[/FONT]

The Shooting Cycle by Josh Blackman, Shelby Baird :: SSRN

Does it?

The entire section on ‘Breaking the Cycle’ very much had an agenda as I read it. They were essentially exploring how to change the culture to be able to pass gun control legislation. The ‘cycle’ is a rather silly thing to study if you ask me. We ALL know that it exists and why.

That is one way to look at it, if you approach the study with your own internal bias. On the other hand, they could be pointing out that the attempts to pass new laws is part of the cycle, and that the best way to break it is to stop trying to pass the laws as a reaction to a non existent problem.