Mass shootings

[BmorePat87]

(02-15-2018, 02:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I assume you're talking about mass shootings, without your source it's difficult to tell.  Within that, what criteria are they using to determine a mass shooting?  As for the "assault weapons" ban, every ounce of empirical data showed it had zero effect on gun related crime.  As Matt alluded to earlier, and we have discussed, there's a lot more going on than access to firearms.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/bill-clintons-over-the-top-fact-on-mass-shootings/2013/01/10/7040d61e-5b7a-11e2-9fa9-5fbdc9530eb9_blog.html?utm_term=.af79145f95f3

Their source:

[/url]

Quote:[url=http://www.doc.state.mn.us/org/commissioneroffice/planperf.htm]Grant Duwe, director of research and evaluation at the Minnesota Department of Corrections, assembled a data set going back 100 years for a 2007 book titled, “Mass Murder in the United States: A History.” He used the FBI Supplementary Homicide Reports, which date from 1976, and then supplemented the FBI reports with news reports (principally The New York Times) dating from 1900.

So this can actually mean they're underrepresented from 30's-70's, but it can also mean it's subjective. It's not perfect.

Quote:I won't deny, and no one should, that allowing civilian gun ownership on the scale permitted by the Constitution is going to result in gun related crime.  The question is, does the freedom outweigh the cost of said freedom?  We could save a lot of lives by making the maximum speed limit 40 mph, are people willing to do that?

When comparing countries with mass shootings, the trend is more guns means more mass shootings. Even with the US and it's disproportional gun ownership removed from the data, it means more mass shootings when you own more guns. Same with all gun related crimes, as you said.

But, yea, this is a constitutionally protected right. We can't remove guns.