Roseburg, Oregon School Shooting

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

Regardless, what makes it tolerable?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Exactly. If it stays at the same level, not getting worse and not getting better, is that okay? Do we accept the status quo of a Sandy Hook or an Umpqua every few months? Is that a fair trade? Is your safety, or the illusion of it, worth the lives of scores of innocent children?

Don't bother to answer.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by JBS...

SOURCE Data compiled from the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting program by James Alan Fox, criminology professor at Northeastern University; U.S. Census Bureau; Journal Sentinel research Emily Yount AND Ben Poston

criteria
The killings were carried out by a lone shooter. (Except in the case of the Columbine massacre and the Westside Middle School killings, both of which involved two shooters.)

The shootings happened during a single incident and in a public place. (Public, except in the case of a party in Crandon, Wisconsin, and another in Seattle.) Crimes primarily related to armed robbery or gang activity are not included.

The shooter took the lives of at least four people. An FBI crime classification report identifies an individual as a mass murderer-as opposed to a spree killer or a serial killer-if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), and typically in a single location.

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 cases in which there were three fatalities and the shooter also died, per the previous criterion.)

We included six so-called "spree killings"-prominent cases that fit closely with our above criteria for mass murder, but in which the killings occurred in multiple locations over a short period of time.

Ah, they fudged the numbers! Departing from FBI criteria with regard to the shooter being included as a victim and in including 6..... count 'em...... 6 "spree killings" among the actual mass murders.

So, they padded the overall numbers by including the perpetrators and they increased the actual number of mass murders by including incidents that don't fit the FBI definition. How much you wanna bet those extra incidents were cherry picked to flesh out the totals in the years in which the Assault Weapons Ban was in effect?

And you had the nerve to insult DQ's stats.

[BlueStreak]

Ahhhhhh, I see! So "spree killings" don't count?

Why? Because the victims are somehow less dead than those shot individually or in a "mass shooting"?

Maybe we should also discount killings that take place on Friday and Saturday nights, because alcohol may have been involved? After all, guns aren't used to kill people, so it must be the booze, right?

Or maybe we could discount shootings that take place if the lunatic who kills claims he shoots people for religious reasons? He killed them because some flaming shrubberies told him to. Wouldn't want to infringe on the crazy bastards religious freedom, now would we? Instead of recognizing he kills with a gun we could change the subject to "shrubbery control"?

[BlueStreak]

Why don't you fucking gun nuts just tell the damn truth;

That your insecure and/or immature and you don't want Uncle Barack taking your fucking toys/ security blanky and you don't give a shit about the death toll...........

Because that's what lies at the heart of it.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Why don't you fucking gun nuts just tell the damn truth;

That your insecure and/or immature and you don't want Uncle Barack taking your fucking toys/ security blanky and you don't give a shit about the death toll...........

Because that's what lies at the heart of it.

Now your ass...uming

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Why don't you fucking gun nuts just tell the damn truth;

That your insecure and/or immature and you don't want Uncle Barack taking your fucking toys/ security blanky and you don't give a shit about the death toll...........

Because that's what lies at the heart of it.

Part of the problem is that so far these mass killings have been primarily in schools where the kids/students are defenseless. The gun nuts may be living with a false sense of insecurity believing that since they are armed to the hilt, they are safe. Eventually a few of these bastards are going to get hit and hopefully they will then sing a different tune.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Now your ass...uming

No, I'm reading the stupid shit you post.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Now your ass...uming

What is that supposed to mean? Trying to be clever?

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

If you look a little more, the trend is up, even with your 'looser' dataset. 2006-2008 is the highest average over any 3 consecutive years. The last period shown, 2001-2010, is the only ten-year period shown in which the yearly total never drops to 50 or less. The average per year from 2001-2010 is about* 97.5, significantly higher than 76.1 (1975 to 1984), and 82.7 (1985 to 1994). There's variation, but there's a definite trend.




*I'm reading yearly data off the graph, so I may be a little inexact.

Right, because no matter how you look at it...................

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

[BlueStreak]

Almost 10,000 dead this year, already. Over 20,000 injured.

Yeah, "Nothing to See Here, Folks."