• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Number of mass shootings this year....shocking

BretJ said:
Discuss...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/how-many-mass-shootings-are-there-really.html?_r=2

Note the publisher and writer.......Neither are bastions of NRA propaganda.....

Shootingtracker actually counted pelletgun attacks as mass shootings?
Click to expand...

It is as if we keep talking about a solution without adequate studies of the problem. We have body counts. Where are these statistics?

Body count
Legal v illegal guns
Age of shooters
Occupation
History of mental health problems
On which medications or stopped when
Gang- related stats
How many done in commission of robbery
How many a result of domestic violence
How many legal gun owners were shooters
Where were illegal guns obtained

Your article says Congress and the NRA is blocking the CDC from doing these kinds of studies. I'd like to see some proof of that. To my knowledge, the CDC is not under congressional control and certainly the NRA has no input.

Where are detailed statistics?
How many shooters have previous felony convictions
 
MaggieD said:
It is as if we keep talking about a solution without adequate studies of the problem. We have body counts. Where are these statistics?

Body count
Legal v illegal guns
Age of shooters
Occupation
History of mental health problems
On which medications or stopped when
Gang- related stats
How many done in commission of robbery
How many a result of domestic violence
How many legal gun owners were shooters
Where were illegal guns obtained

Your article says Congress and the NRA is blocking the CDC from doing these kinds of studies. I'd like to see some proof of that. To my knowledge, the CDC is not under congressional control and certainly the NRA has no input.

Where are detailed statistics?
How many shooters have previous felony convictions
Click to expand...

The CDC is not blocked from doing it. They are not getting Federal funds to do it. So I guess unless the feds fund it, it can't get done???
 
BretJ said:
Discuss...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/how-many-mass-shootings-are-there-really.html?_r=2

Note the publisher and writer.......Neither are bastions of NRA propaganda.....

Shootingtracker actually counted pelletgun attacks as mass shootings?
Click to expand...

This is all you need to know from that article...

"One thing we all need is better data. Since 1996, Congress and the gun lobby have prevented the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from conducting comprehensive research into gun violence. In the wake of the latest horror, and the confusion that followed, will that finally change?"

This is another in a long line of calls for the CDC to head up "research" into gun violence, that by political influence may or may not terminate with the gun itself (thus gun control.) Problem is we have conflicting data. "Gun homicides" has become steady after the 1990's declines, yet calls for background checks are up in support. People own more guns, and overall we have lower crime rates yet the gun debate rages on because of key events dominating the media.

Qualifying and quantifying mass shootings guides a political debate that purposefully side steps both other gun violence and/or suicide rates (which are up) and/or overall crime rates. My concern is guiding the mass shootings conversation as a means to a political goal that we have legitimate concern over real effectiveness. It would have been nice to see the article really conclude with that instead of appealing to government to "research" the matter within their political confines. As the CDC is all but certain to do.
 
MaggieD said:
It is as if we keep talking about a solution without adequate studies of the problem. We have body counts. Where are these statistics?

Body count
Legal v illegal guns
Age of shooters
Occupation
History of mental health problems
On which medications or stopped when
Gang- related stats
How many done in commission of robbery
How many a result of domestic violence
How many legal gun owners were shooters
Where were illegal guns obtained

Your article says Congress and the NRA is blocking the CDC from doing these kinds of studies. I'd like to see some proof of that. To my knowledge, the CDC is not under congressional control and certainly the NRA has no input.

Where are detailed statistics?
How many shooters have previous felony convictions
Click to expand...

States could already acquire this information without the CDC. Seems that it would be far more practical/useful to pass states legislation that would do so than the grandstanding we are seeing now in CT.
 
OrphanSlug said:
This is all you need to know from that article...

"One thing we all need is better data. Since 1996, Congress and the gun lobby have prevented the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from conducting comprehensive research into gun violence. In the wake of the latest horror, and the confusion that followed, will that finally change?"
Click to expand...

This is not true. They are not getting fed funding to do it. I guess all the rich dems feel our tax dollars should fund it instead of them.
 
BretJ said:
Discuss...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/how-many-mass-shootings-are-there-really.html?_r=2

Note the publisher and writer.......Neither are bastions of NRA propaganda.....

Shootingtracker actually counted pelletgun attacks as mass shootings?
Click to expand...

Interesting, about the statistics. But nothing new in principal. People looking at a set of numbers that are almost certainly the consequence of social change and not of availability of weapons. That would be like attributing a kid's messing her pants to her having eaten a hamburger.
 
Black Dog said:
This is not true. They are not getting fed funding to do it. I guess all the rich dems feel our tax dollars should fund it instead of them.
Click to expand...

If some rich Democrats funded it rather than the government you and I both know that would be used to discredit the studies IF they pointed toward gun ownership being part of the problem, and with good reason.
 
BretJ said:
Discuss...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/how-many-mass-shootings-are-there-really.html?_r=2

Note the publisher and writer.......Neither are bastions of NRA propaganda.....

Shootingtracker actually counted pelletgun attacks as mass shootings?
Click to expand...

First, one must decide why to concenrate vast resources on a minor portion (tiny subset?) of crime, and second, are acts of war (terrorism?) really crime at all?

Our goal with this relatively narrow set of parameters was to better understand the seemingly indiscriminate attacks that have increased in recent years, whether in movie theaters, elementary schools or office parks.
Click to expand...

That (above quoted goal) exculdes the word gun, shooting or victim (or perp) count completely. So we are left to wonder what is meant by "seemingly indiscriminant attacks" and why that motive (lack of motive?) is so important.

Since this thread is placed under gun control, rather than law and order or general policical discussion one must assume that the "right answer" must address gun control. Limiting our options for dicussion to gun control laws it then becomes a matter of knowing who might be more likely to commit such an act (in advance) to prevent only those few from having 2A rights.

One must assume that knowlege of intent (or attitude?) will not always preceed a gun purchase, thus laws aimed at controlling gun sales alone are not going to work. One must also assume (admit?) that we have absolutely no idea who owns each of the over 3 million guns now in private hands so putting folks on "no gun" lists alone will do no good. Some (banoids?) seem to see removiing of most (all?) guns from private hands as the best idea but that makes as little sense as removing all flammable liquids (accelerants?) from private hands to prevent "mass" arson.

The only thing that is likely to work is to (permanenetly?) remove these "identfied" folks from society (institutionalize or execute them?). That brings us back to how one is to identify (discriminate?) those likely to commit "indiscriminant attacks" in the first place. I would say that boils down to masssive surveillance and laws that allow punishment (institutionalization?) when no crime has yet been committed but "experts" say that it is (very or somewhat?) likely otherwise.

Discuss....
 
OrphanSlug said:
This is all you need to know from that article...

"One thing we all need is better data. Since 1996, Congress and the gun lobby have prevented the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from conducting comprehensive research into gun violence. In the wake of the latest horror, and the confusion that followed, will that finally change?"

This is another in a long line of calls for the CDC to head up "research" into gun violence, that by political influence may or may not terminate with the gun itself (thus gun control.) Problem is we have conflicting data. "Gun homicides" has become steady after the 1990's declines, yet calls for background checks are up in support. People own more guns, and overall we have lower crime rates yet the gun debate rages on because of key events dominating the media.

Qualifying and quantifying mass shootings guides a political debate that purposefully side steps both other gun violence and/or suicide rates (which are up) and/or overall crime rates. My concern is guiding the mass shootings conversation as a means to a political goal that we have legitimate concern over real effectiveness. It would have been nice to see the article really conclude with that instead of appealing to government to "research" the matter within their political confines. As the CDC is all but certain to do.
Click to expand...

Knowing who is likely to have a "gun possession" disease seems to imply that there may be some medical solution to be discovered. I fear that the CDC recommended treatment will be worse than the disease. ;)
 
MaggieD said:
Your article says Congress and the NRA is blocking the CDC from doing these kinds of studies. I'd like to see some proof of that. To my knowledge, the CDC is not under congressional control and certainly the NRA has no input.

Where are detailed statistics?
How many shooters have previous felony convictions
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-despite-the-ban-being-lifted-two-years-ago/

This is a really good write up on the topic. Legally, the CDC is allowed to study gun violence and has been authorized for the last two years; however, the CDC has very limited resources and recognizes that - without dedicated funding and authorization from Congress - then any research that it does conduct means that resources are being allocated away from other projects into a very divisive topic that could lead to additional repercussions in the form of Congress withdrawing even more funding from the CDC.
 
BrewerBob said:
If some rich Democrats funded it rather than the government you and I both know that would be used to discredit the studies IF they pointed toward gun ownership being part of the problem, and with good reason.
Click to expand...

Possibly, it would depend on the statistics etc. now wouldn't it?
 
BretJ said:
States could already acquire this information without the CDC. Seems that it would be far more practical/useful to pass states legislation that would do so than the grandstanding we are seeing now in CT.
Click to expand...

States would have a natural incentive to only study their own laws and the impact on their own geographical and cultural situations. That type of research would not provide much guidance to other states.
 
BretJ said:
Shootingtracker actually counted pelletgun attacks as mass shootings?
Click to expand...
That's ridiculous and makes about as much sense as NOT counting "robbery, gang violence or domestic abuse".

Ironically enough, I think the term "mass shooting" would technically include any shooting where 4 or more people are injured or killed, but, as you point out about pellet guns, including that kind of information is essentially worthless. At the same time though, if we use only the "killed" description, we have a very real possibility of missing out on important information as well.

While I hate ambiguity, a "mass shooting", in popular culture, is generally understood. You don't need an arbitrary number dead or injured, people understand a mass shooting when they see one. Defining it for statistical purposes is just difficult to do.
Black Dog said:
The CDC is not blocked from doing it. They are not getting Federal funds to do it. So I guess unless the feds fund it, it can't get done???
Click to expand...
...how would a federally funded organization research something without the federal funds to do so? If the federal government doesn't provide them funds to research it, they are essentially blocking the CDC from studying it, even if it is not by law (which, if I understand correctly, there are several restrictions by Congress to prevent the CDC from studying this area).
 
Black Dog said:
The CDC is not blocked from doing it. They are not getting Federal funds to do it. So I guess unless the feds fund it, it can't get done???
Click to expand...

The CDC has limited funding and any resources dedicated to this topic not only requires a removal of resources from other important topics, but it also places the CDC into the crosshair of Congress for additional cuts as a repercussion for studying this topic without explicit approval from the Congress (in the form of funding).
 
Black Dog said:
The CDC is not blocked from doing it. They are not getting Federal funds to do it. So I guess unless the feds fund it, it can't get done???
Click to expand...

Why not complain that the FBI is not funded to study breast cancer? Why, exactly, should these criminal, terror or war events be considered a disease in the first place?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Why not complain that the FBI is not funded to study breast cancer? Why, exactly, should these criminal, terror or war events be considered a disease in the first place?
Click to expand...

I don't know. Makes no sense to me.
 
Black Dog said:
I don't know. Makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...

It does if you consider that you could then substitute "being diagnosed" for "due process". The banoids see a perfect end run around that pesky Constitutional problem of imposing a sentence (taking away 2A rights?) before any crime is committed, much less a trial being held.

All manner of mandates are possible for "the health of the nation" which require no due process at all - PPACA can force you to buy a "private" good/service or impose a penalty for non-compliance (no trial is required at all). Can the CDC (or its assigns) now "quarantine" someone if they might pose a health risk?

The plan, as I see it, is for an "expert" (mental health professional?) to diagnose someone as a "likely" dangerous person and thus take away their 2A rights "for the health of the nation".
 
MrT said:
States would have a natural incentive to only study their own laws and the impact on their own geographical and cultural situations. That type of research would not provide much guidance to other states.
Click to expand...

If states thought it were important enough an issue, they could easily standardize a reporting format. By itself it would do as you say but allow easy compilation and reporting by any number of third parties if desired.
 
BretJ said:
Discuss...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/how-many-mass-shootings-are-there-really.html?_r=2

Note the publisher and writer.......Neither are bastions of NRA propaganda.....

Shootingtracker actually counted pelletgun attacks as mass shootings?
Click to expand...
Media's Mass Shooting Count Misleading | National Review Online

"... The numbers are provocative — and, unsurprisingly, misleading. The source of the much-publicized data is the “Mass Shooting Tracker” at shootingtracker.com, a crowdsourced page that defines a “mass shooting” as any in which “four or more people are shot in one event, or related series of events, likely without a cooling off period.” Victims might include the gunman; the data is based on news reports.

There are obvious problems, one identified by the FBI in a 2014 report on active-shooter situations, which couches its own statistics by noting: A handful of those identified as “wounded” were not injured by gunfire but rather suffered injuries incidental to the event, such as being hit by flying objects/shattered glass or falling while running. ..."

The article goes on to show:
  • There have been 67 “mass killings” this year, not 355 "mass shootings" (source)
  • There were 116 mass public shootings during the twentieth century (source)
  • The Congressional Research Service reported 317 mass shootings between 1999 and 2013, only 66 of which qualified under their criteria as mass public shootings (source)
 
MaggieD said:
It is as if we keep talking about a solution without adequate studies of the problem. We have body counts. Where are these statistics?

Body count
Legal v illegal guns
Age of shooters
Occupation
History of mental health problems
On which medications or stopped when
Gang- related stats
How many done in commission of robbery
How many a result of domestic violence
How many legal gun owners were shooters
Where were illegal guns obtained

Your article says Congress and the NRA is blocking the CDC from doing these kinds of studies. I'd like to see some proof of that. To my knowledge, the CDC is not under congressional control and certainly the NRA has no input.

Where are detailed statistics?
How many shooters have previous felony convictions
Click to expand...

The FBI already has those statistics and use the same statistics to classify mass shootings. The definition that the group that compiled the data is different than the one used by the FBI.
Congress will not fund the CDC because they CDC has already implied what they will find in their study by attempting to debunk the previous study was done by a previous study that showed results that were contrary to the results the new CDC staff wants. They didn't like the results of the study.
 
OrphanSlug said:
This is all you need to know from that article...

"One thing we all need is better data. Since 1996, Congress and the gun lobby have prevented the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from conducting comprehensive research into gun violence. In the wake of the latest horror, and the confusion that followed, will that finally change?"

This is another in a long line of calls for the CDC to head up "research" into gun violence, that by political influence may or may not terminate with the gun itself (thus gun control.) Problem is we have conflicting data. "Gun homicides" has become steady after the 1990's declines, yet calls for background checks are up in support. People own more guns, and overall we have lower crime rates yet the gun debate rages on because of key events dominating the media.

Qualifying and quantifying mass shootings guides a political debate that purposefully side steps both other gun violence and/or suicide rates (which are up) and/or overall crime rates. My concern is guiding the mass shootings conversation as a means to a political goal that we have legitimate concern over real effectiveness. It would have been nice to see the article really conclude with that instead of appealing to government to "research" the matter within their political confines. As the CDC is all but certain to do.
Click to expand...

The FBI already quantifies and classifies mass shootings. If the CDC did a study they would get that information from the FBI.
 
NonoBadDog said:
The FBI already has those statistics and use the same statistics to classify mass shootings. The definition that the group that compiled the data is different than the one used by the FBI.
Congress will not fund the CDC because they CDC has already implied what they will find in their study by attempting to debunk the previous study was done by a previous study that showed results that were contrary to the results the new CDC staff wants. They didn't like the results of the study.
Click to expand...

Science works by replicating studies to confirm or debunk results. Your confused allegations have no basis in fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom