Liberal Hypocrisy

Orion

Well-Known Member
It seems to me that if the shooting fairy waved her magic Glock and all guns vanished from America, there would still remain enclaves where violence, hatred, and gang wars would remain and I cannot believe that if guns were so removed that these people would turn into happy hippies doing group hug drive by's.
Just look to the UK post-self loading and pistol legislation. Latest from the Met supremo doesn't appear to include reference to lawfully held firearms or their owners - how did they resist the temptation?

https://www.rt.com/uk/360969-gun-smuggling-seized-police/
 

Rasputin

Well-Known Member
Are you talking to me or Southern? I just linked you to some stats as requested. As for "dubious source", this is entirely based on and linked to Congressional Research Service and FBI official data. I'm not sure you'll find anything better. From a very quick read it looked like there have been c4.4 mass public shootings a year - which is about 44 over ten years. Not 25, but not far off - it's not thousands or even hundreds. All depends on your definition of mass shootings, of course - which is what the first article I linked to discusses.

Both of you . You are not reading the stats properly its 4.4 mass shootings per million people so you need to scale it up for the whole country. Those sources are highly doctored and ignore and remove a shed load of variables.

A simple quick google search of the mass shootings in USA brings up this http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/mass-shootings-timeline.html?_r=0 which lists 10 right of the bat, I am sure I could find a 100 more examples of that.

Also lets be realistic here and think in Chicago NYC LA etc how many day to day gang related homicides and gun battles there are which are also unreported.

Whilst I don't doubt that Mass shootings are pretty small in the overall scheme of things to say there have been on 25 over a decade is pretty misleading.
 

JTO

Well-Known Member
Sometime after the UK handgun ban, a senior police officer was asked why it hadn't resulted in a drop in handgun crime. "We didn't expect it to". Was his reply.
 

tikka_madras

Well-Known Member
Both of you . You are not reading the stats properly its 4.4 mass shootings per million people so you need to scale it up for the whole country. Those sources are highly doctored and ignore and remove a shed load of variables.

A simple quick google search of the mass shootings in USA brings up this http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/mass-shootings-timeline.html?_r=0 which lists 10 right of the bat, I am sure I could find a 100 more examples of that.

Also lets be realistic here and think in Chicago NYC LA etc how many day to day gang related homicides and gun battles there are which are also unreported.

Whilst I don't doubt that Mass shootings are pretty small in the overall scheme of things to say there have been on 25 over a decade is pretty misleading.
No, it's not per million. It's 4.4 in total. You need to go back and actually read it. Which is 40-odd in the last decade.

And this is exactly what the liberal media do - they give a list of shootings, using only the large incidents involving lots of ordinary people going about their everyday business, then say there have been x thousand in the last few years. This is to deliberately confuse the issue to make the public think all of the "mass shootings" are of that type. Mass public shootings, not involving domestic disputes or gangland criminals shooting at each other or bank robbers firing at people as they run off or kids firing bb guns at neighbours, are not as prevalent as the leftist media would have you think. They average 4.4 per year. Which is still way too many, but that's not the issue at hand. The issue is the distortion of facts by the media for their own purposes, which you seem to have swallowed wholesale.
 

Rasputin

Well-Known Member
No, it's not per million. It's 4.4 in total. You need to go back and actually read it. Which is 40-odd in the last decade.

And this is exactly what the liberal media do - they give a list of shootings, using only the large incidents involving lots of ordinary people going about their everyday business, then say there have been x thousand in the last few years. This is to deliberately confuse the issue to make the public think all of the "mass shootings" are of that type. Mass public shootings, not involving domestic disputes or gangland criminals shooting at each other or bank robbers firing at people as they run off or kids firing bb guns at neighbours, are not as prevalent as the leftist media would have you think. They average 4.4 per year. Which is still way too many, but that's not the issue at hand. The issue is the distortion of facts by the media for their own purposes, which you seem to have swallowed wholesale.


murderrates.jpg

Are you seriously trying to tell me there are only 4.4 cases of shooting in USA per year where 4 or more people are involved who don't necessarily need to have been killed??? I meant lets just ignore the facts here and think rationally about this.

http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/crimnet/ojsa/greenbook.pdf Please scroll to page 202 and start looking at the tables which look like this...

VF1.png


VF Index.png
 

tikka_madras

Well-Known Member
No, you prat. Read the links I sent, read what the definitions of "mass public shooting" etc are. Try to inwardly digest the semantic differences. Try to understand how misunderstanding of the exact meaning of those words can be distorted by using examples of "mass public shootings" combined with statistics for "mass shootings" (which include the kids with BB guns) to create an impression that the gun violence is of a different type and greater severity than it actually is. Try to understand that this is a deliberate use of sensationalism by the liberal news media to push their anti-gun message.

I do think that the USA has got some pretty silly gun laws, but it's their country not mine and not for me to decide. Repeating the propaganda of the antis on the web is not helpful.
 

Rasputin

Well-Known Member
No, you prat. Read the links I sent, read what the definitions of "mass public shooting" etc are. Try to inwardly digest the semantic differences. Try to understand how misunderstanding of the exact meaning of those words can be distorted by using examples of "mass public shootings" combined with statistics for "mass shootings" (which include the kids with BB guns) to create an impression that the gun violence is of a different type and greater severity than it actually is. Try to understand that this is a deliberate use of sensationalism by the liberal news media to push their anti-gun message.

I do think that the USA has got some pretty silly gun laws, but it's their country not mine and not for me to decide. Repeating the propaganda of the antis on the web is not helpful.
What on earth are you talking about Willis? Do you even read the stats at the bottom? The link I posted was taken from the DoJ and is concrete reporting on gun crime not some rehashed stuff of the net. Im not arguing with the concept and frankly don't care about the shooting, I am arguing with the hard facts that claiming there are only 4.4 mass shootings per year is simply wrong!!



* Specifically: From 1999 to 2003, there was an average of 20.8 incidents per year, with 95.8 people killed and 22.4 wounded. In the next five-year period, the average number of incidents fell negligibly to 20.2, the average number of people killed went up to 99, and the average number of people wounded declined to 19.4. And in 2009-2013, the number of incidents increased to 22.4, the number of people killed went up to 116, and the number of wounded rose to 46.6.)
(** For example, the data include four shootings that could have been classified as familicides but were instead counted with the mass public shootings because of where they took place.)
(*** There are obvious problems with comparing a four-year period to several 10-year periods, particularly when it includes what may be an outlier year. But for the record: From 2010 to 2013, the average number of incidents per year was 4.5, with 7.4 people killed per incident.)
(**** That rate is per 100,000 people, not per 10 million. The two trendlines have to be scaled differently because mass public shootings represent such a tiny percentage of gun murders.)
 

tikka_madras

Well-Known Member
What on earth are you talking about Willis? Do you even read the stats at the bottom? The link I posted was taken from the DoJ and is concrete reporting on gun crime not some rehashed stuff of the net. Im not arguing with the concept and frankly don't care about the shooting, I am arguing with the hard facts that claiming there are only 4.4 mass shootings per year is simply wrong!!



* Specifically: From 1999 to 2003, there was an average of 20.8 incidents per year, with 95.8 people killed and 22.4 wounded. In the next five-year period, the average number of incidents fell negligibly to 20.2, the average number of people killed went up to 99, and the average number of people wounded declined to 19.4. And in 2009-2013, the number of incidents increased to 22.4, the number of people killed went up to 116, and the number of wounded rose to 46.6.)
(** For example, the data include four shootings that could have been classified as familicides but were instead counted with the mass public shootings because of where they took place.)
(*** There are obvious problems with comparing a four-year period to several 10-year periods, particularly when it includes what may be an outlier year. But for the record: From 2010 to 2013, the average number of incidents per year was 4.5, with 7.4 people killed per incident.)
(**** That rate is per 100,000 people, not per 10 million. The two trendlines have to be scaled differently because mass public shootings represent such a tiny percentage of gun murders.)
The reason I'm calling you a prat is because you're not reading the sources I sent, which are official US govt figures. The reason you're getting confused is that "mass shootings" and "mass public shootings" have very different definitions. This is all explained in short easy to read paragraphs.

This is the exact trick the liberal media use - they use examples of Columbine etc which are "mass public shootings" where many innocents are killed (which the public care about very much) and then use stats for "mass shootings" which are much more common and mostly criminals shooting each other etc (which the public won't care about quite as much) to try to confuse the public into thinking that there is a lot more of the type of gun crime that they care about going on. Do you understand now? Mass public shootings, of a type where four or more strangers are killed, such as all of the ones in the list you sent....4.4 a year.

Go back to the beginning, re-read and try again.
 
Last edited:

Davee

Well-Known Member
OK forget the mud slinging. I worked contracts in Southern Africa for many years, AK47's a plenty, you want one? $75 (in 2013, but probably more now) with 2 mags and 1000 rounds!! How you get out of the country is your problem. Cannot be licenced in Zambia, Botswana or ZA. Crimes in ZA have been committed with R4 rifles 'lost' by the army and guns can apparently be hired from Police Arsenals!! One mass murder occurred when a SANDF remote controlled 30mm twin oekelen went "out of control"! Julias -motor mouth- Malema ex ANC Youth League leader publicly sings 'Shoot the Boer (farmer)' at political rallies. I carried a CZ 765 24/7 for several years as I lived on a farm, many of the farm murders are aimed at acquiring fire-arms. South Africa is in effect in a civil war, how many groups are fighting who and to what end only God knows. That is the reason I and others on this forum left. Despite all this the legal gun control is good, it is based on the Kiwi system, Certificate of Competency before you can apply for a licence, and when you do apply it is for a specific gun, serial number etc to be supplied.
What would make more sense would be separate statistics for crimes committed by legally held and unlicensed guns, but that won't happen as it would skew the results away from the results that the 'liberals' want.
 

tikka_madras

Well-Known Member
OK forget the mud slinging. I worked contracts in Southern Africa for many years, AK47's a plenty, you want one? $75 (in 2013, but probably more now) with 2 mags and 1000 rounds!! How you get out of the country is your problem. Cannot be licenced in Zambia, Botswana or ZA. Crimes in ZA have been committed with R4 rifles 'lost' by the army and guns can apparently be hired from Police Arsenals!! One mass murder occurred when a SANDF remote controlled 30mm twin oekelen went "out of control"! Julias -motor mouth- Malema ex ANC Youth League leader publicly sings 'Shoot the Boer (farmer)' at political rallies. I carried a CZ 765 24/7 for several years as I lived on a farm, many of the farm murders are aimed at acquiring fire-arms. South Africa is in effect in a civil war, how many groups are fighting who and to what end only God knows. That is the reason I and others on this forum left. Despite all this the legal gun control is good, it is based on the Kiwi system, Certificate of Competency before you can apply for a licence, and when you do apply it is for a specific gun, serial number etc to be supplied.
What would make more sense would be separate statistics for crimes committed by legally held and unlicensed guns, but that won't happen as it would skew the results away from the results that the 'liberals' want.
I got to know a couple of SA farmers. One has packed it in now, with some "war" stories which are frankly terrifying (and involving more than a few bodies) and one who lives in a virtual fortress and goes about armed to the teeth. Anecdotally, shoot on sight seems to be the policy that far out in the bush.
 

Rasputin

Well-Known Member
The reason I'm calling you a prat is because you're not reading the sources I sent, which are official US govt figures. The reason you're getting confused is that "mass shootings" and "mass public shootings" have very different definitions. This is all explained in short easy to read paragraphs.

This is the exact trick the liberal media use - they use examples of Columbine etc which are "mass public shootings" where many innocents are killed (which the public care about very much) and then use stats for "mass shootings" which are much more common and mostly criminals shooting each other etc (which the public won't care about quite as much) to try to confuse the public into thinking that there is a lot more of the type of gun crime that they care about going on. Do you understand now? Mass public shootings, of a type where four or more strangers are killed, such as all of the ones in the list you sent....4.4 a year.

Go back to the beginning, re-read and try again.
Ok I cant be arsed to argue with you. As you are absolutely not getting it!!

If we agree that a mass shooting has 4+ victims then it counts as a mass shooting and you honestly believe that there are only a 4 case per year in the USA of this happening then crack on.
 

tikka_madras

Well-Known Member
Ok I cant be arsed to argue with you. As you are absolutely not getting it!!

If we agree that a mass shooting has 4+ victims then it counts as a mass shooting and you honestly believe that there are only a 4 case per year in the USA of this happening then crack on.
You're a bit too thick for this conversation. I suggest we end it too.
 

Rasputin

Well-Known Member
I was going to pull together some links to the data, but it has already been done.
And John Lott, the most cited statistician in the world, has a new book out on the subject,

http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

Hahaha thats hilarious. A pro gun statistician cooking the books and showing what he wants to show.

As as a former statician it makes me cringe that that someone who is a "leading" light includes Russia, the balkans (former war zones and rough as hell) and even Norway as EU. Not to mention the absolutely clearly skewed data in it particularly involving one Andrea Brevik. Which really skews the results massively.


At at the end of day stats can be manipulated to show what ever you want by including or removing outliers, distorting sample size and creating categories but the fact remains with regards to the OP saying only 4.4 a year is wrong.
 

nun_hunter

Well-Known Member
Ok I cant be arsed to argue with you. As you are absolutely not getting it!!

If we agree that a mass shooting has 4+ victims then it counts as a mass shooting and you honestly believe that there are only a 4 case per year in the USA of this happening then crack on.
A "mass public shooting" not a "mass shooting", does your monitor not show up the word "public"? It may explain why you're not getting this conversation at all.
 

Southern

Well-Known Member
Hahaha thats hilarious. A pro gun statistician cooking the books and showing what he wants to show.

As as a former statician .....At at the end of day stats can be manipulated to show what ever you want by including or removing outliers, distorting sample size and creating categories...
Not to be mean, but the key word seems to be "former".
And your assertion about lying with statistics is precisely the point I (and Dr. Lott, and others here ) have been making: that the people controllers are being dishonest with bogus "facts".

John Lott is the most cited academic in the world, in all fields, and has been, for over 20 years.

Lott is a PhD in Economics who believed in "gun control" and set about to substantiate it. After several years of research, he changed his mind and wrote a book, "More Guns, Less Crime." So he came to his position quite honestly.

If you take time to read the research behind the article I cited, you will see that it covers 2009-2015, when the Balkans was not a "war zone", but a tourist destination. And he includes Norway and other non-EU countries because he is comparing similar civilized industrial nations. If you really want to see the USA look good, just peruse the entire world, for civilian homicides, not military. As Western nations permit more people in from savage "cultures", the crime rates rise.

But don't worry. I have been keeping stats on this subject, writing about it, and discussing it or debating law professors on radio and television for over 40 years, so I have lots of data which refutes the propaganda of political tyrants. I will post more. If you have something in particular which will change your mind from whatever it is you now believe ( I cannot discern that ), I will be happy to provide the data.
 

Rasputin

Well-Known Member
Utter drivel. Tikka you are arguing semantics.l have noted the difference between mass publics and mass shooting but you are overlooking it.

Southern you are blinkered to real world but that's fine because Lott's comments will come back to haunt him. With accusations of fiddling.

As I said you can make whatever up you want but to include Norway and U.K with single cases is wrong. You are merely using hem to illustrate a point we had one in the last decade same with Norway. If that was any other statocial map they would most likely have been removed.

Btw im not an advocate for greater gun control in fact far from it . Just think if your going to use stats then they need to be absolutely concrete and Lotts work from what inuderstand when peer reviewed has completely been flawed.

Anyways au revoir.
 
Last edited:

artschool

Well-Known Member
just arrived back from a week in south africa. happy to report not a sign of a war zone and the only guns i saw were hunting rifles!
 

Southern

Well-Known Member
c
Southern you are blinkered to real world but that's fine because Lott's comments will come back to haunt him. With accusations of fiddling.

As I said you can make whatever up you want....
Btw im not an advocate for greater gun control in fact far from it . Just think if your going to use stats then they need to be absolutely concrete and Lotts work from what inuderstand when peer reviewed has completely been flawed.
.
Gun controllers make claims and accusations about Lott and any other expert who shows them to be fabricators. But in over 20 years, I have never found any of them who could dispute any of his data. First of all, Lott is not doing some arcane math - not even much simple regression analysis. He just compiles a lot of data from police sources, and puts it into the same datum, so it can be accurately compared. And he points out facts of individual "mass shootings", such as the number of shots fired, time between shots, number of times reloaded, etc. He also debunks some of the baloney in editorials, which are complete fabrications about ".50-caliber sniper rifles" and "bullet proof vests" which are not extant in the crimes.

He also points out how many public "mass shootings" are stopped by armed citizens, many of them before they have many, or any, fatal victims. The news and propaganda media omits those stories, as it exaggerates and fabricates others.
 

Top