• 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!

Mass Killings on the decline?

So he got his facts wrong? Can you elaborate...



And Bush did what differently? (repeal Clinton's semi-automatic ban?)

Paul

Bush didn't do anything differently.

I just find it strangely, even conspiracy theory-ish that the gun control party gains power in 2006 (legislature) and an increase in mass shootings starts then. Most of the mass shootings under Bush happened after 2006.

He didn't do anything differently that I am aware of, its just a weird coincidence.
 
Bush didn't do anything differently.

I just find it strangely, even conspiracy theory-ish that the gun control party gains power in 2006 (legislature) and an increase in mass shootings starts then. Most of the mass shootings under Bush happened after 2006.

He didn't do anything differently that I am aware of, its just a weird coincidence.

I don't think 'coincidence' constitutes as a form of evidence. Can you not elaborate on the figures you gave in your earlier post?

Paul
 
Right. And nobody is taking away voting right either so, one more time, do you want regulation applied evenly or not?

Somethings need regulation and somethings do not. Guns do, voting, does not.
You can not make us citizens pay to vote. That is essentially what you are doing.
 

I wasn't doubting anything until I viewed what you felt constituents 'Mass killings'. And for me, however shocking : "On Tuesday, 22-year-old Jacob Tyler Roberts killed 2 people and himself with a stolen rifle in Clackamas Town Center, Oregon. His motive is unknown. " This does not constitute 'Mass killings'. That said, I'm not sure what position you wish to advance with this evidence?

Paul
 
Somethings need regulation and somethings do not. Guns do, voting, does not.
You can not make us citizens pay to vote. That is essentially what you are doing.

In both PA and FL this past year there were stories of tens of thousands of voters on rolls in those states that didn't belong on those rolls. There were probably more states with the same problem but those two are the ones that stick in my memory. That's a huge problem in that it could (and perhaps does) have a significant impact on the outcome of elections for all levels of government. More than that the federal government took action to prohibit ordinary and necessary due diligence in the voting process. Meanwhile they are gearing up to slam home additional restrictions on lawfully owned and obtained weapons even though there is no evidence that doing so will have any benefit to the public.

Just like you guys try to break up the nation along ethnic and economic lines you are now trying to divide us along the lines of those who support liberty and those who support stateism.

By the way, every single state out there that provides a state level ID for a required purpose (such as voting) does so at no charge to the individual.
 
I wasn't doubting anything until I viewed what you felt constituents 'Mass killings'. And for me, however shocking : "On Tuesday, 22-year-old Jacob Tyler Roberts killed 2 people and himself with a stolen rifle in Clackamas Town Center, Oregon. His motive is unknown. " This does not constitute 'Mass killings'. That said, I'm not sure what position you wish to advance with this evidence?

Paul


Im advancing NO position. As I stated wayyyy back when at the time when I originally posted it...

:roll:
 
Mother Jones tracked 62 instances of mass killings from 1982 to 2012 (current). That averages out to approx 2 per year. yes...there has been a healthy increase this last year but on average, the incidents have managed to stay pretty consistent.

A Guide to Mass Shootings in America | Mother Jones

I wonder if this all really shocks anyone. I know there are no direct causative links to media and violence but really...video games depict airport shootings, mall shootings, random acts of violence for no good reason, we see it in movies, and TV shows and on the news. Can anyone REALLY be shocked when people are constantly exposed to violence as an option? Im not even suggesting things should be censored...just wondering if anyone is really surprised.
 
By the way, every single state out there that provides a state level ID for a required purpose (such as voting) does so at no charge to the individual.

yes, and they have to PAY for it too!
You cant charge people to vote.

It's a bit dated (2008) but it shows that you have to pay for state IDs: http://www.thepiratescove.us/2008/04/28/what-does-a-state-id-cost/

and voter fraud is few and far between. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
 
Last edited:
yes, and they have to PAY for it too!
You cant charge people to vote.

It's a bit dated (2008) but it shows that you have to pay for state IDs: What Does A State ID Cost? » Pirate's Cove

and voter fraud is few and far between. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

In 2012 only 4 states required a photo ID for voting. Those states were Georgia, Indiana, Tennessee and Kansas. All 4 of those states will provide a free voter ID for anyone who doesn't already have ID which meets state criteria. Other states which are enacting voter ID laws also have similar programs available for those who don't have any other form of ID.

The list you presented is pure propaganda. It does list the cost for certain state ID's but conveniently ignores the rest of the facts.
 
In 2012 only 4 states required a photo ID for voting. Those states were Georgia, Indiana, Tennessee and Kansas. All 4 of those states will provide a free voter ID for anyone who doesn't already have ID which meets state criteria. Other states which are enacting voter ID laws also have similar programs available for those who don't have any other form of ID.

The list you presented is pure propaganda. It does list the cost for certain state ID's but conveniently ignores the rest of the facts.


If those states are truly providing free ID's then i dont see a problem.

and "pure propaganda", that's in YOUR eyes. Generally, you cant get free ID cards unless to meet a certain age reqirement.
 
If those states are truly providing free ID's then i dont see a problem.

and "pure propaganda", that's in YOUR eyes. Generally, you cant get free ID cards unless to meet a certain age reqirement.

When there is a state requirement to have ID for exercising a right then it is the obligation of the state to provide that ID. It's just plain old common sense.
 
I see the Fox News, NRA and GOP spin/lie machine is hard at work.

For the record... there should not be mass shootings at all.

There shouldn't be, but there always will. Or bombings, or stabbings, or some other kind of random senseless violence. You'll never get rid of all of it.
 
Im more interested in why BECK didnt link to the article. Isnt this supposed to be standard practice?

thanks for the link

The article wasn't linked because it was copied in its entirety on the page. Just as every other internet news sites do when they use an AP article.
 
I see the Fox News, NRA and GOP spin/lie machine is hard at work.

For the record... there should not be mass shootings at all.

Seriously!! Excellent point.

I don't know why anyone would post this thread.

It's like saying the lake water we can't drink or fish in is actually cleaner than it was 10 years ago. Yippee!!
 
I see the Fox News, NRA and GOP spin/lie machine is hard at work.

For the record... there should not be mass shootings at all.
?



There should not be anything that is considered "bad" at all... but unfortunately there are crazy people out there and as populations increase there will even be more of them out there...

scary thing is... we are all capable of doing anything that is possible good or bad.
 
Last edited:
There shouldn't be, but there always will. Or bombings, or stabbings, or some other kind of random senseless violence. You'll never get rid of all of it.

No of course not, but there is far far more of that stuff in the US than any where else in the industrialised world... only countries on planet that can be comparable are war torn countries or areas run by drug lords.
 
Seriously!! Excellent point.

I don't know why anyone would post this thread.

It's like saying the lake water we can't drink or fish in is actually cleaner than it was 10 years ago. Yippee!!

Some people (orgs) will clutch at any 'straw'.

Paul
 
Associated Press Story: Believe It or Not Mass Killings Are Not on the Rise, They Are on the Decline | TheBlaze.com

While the perception in the wake of this year’s mass shootings has been that such acts are on the rise, the Associated Press found that it’s actually the exact opposite when you look at the data on a macro level.
“There is no pattern, there is no increase,” says criminologist James Allen Fox of Boston’s Northeastern University.
He adds that the random mass shootings that get the most media attention are the rarest.
While mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, says.
Chances of being killed in a mass shooting, he says, are probably no greater than being struck by lightning.

I have a couple questions about this: what are the numbers? I can't find statistics on the amount of mass murders per year, and in the article you linked to, it doesn't say. It has one person's "estimation" and this person doesn't seem to have any authority on the subject. He did, apparently, write a book about mass murders, but i looked it up and it appears as if nobody has read it. But if he is an expert after all, how many people had to be killed for it to be counted as a mass murder? The article doesn't say what they're talking about.

And then, is there some mention of how many people are injured or killed from these events (by year or otherwise)?

If there were more killing sprees in the 20s and 30s that ended in multiple lives being lost, I'd think an injured person can be saved by modern medicine these days in many cases where that same person with that same injury would have died in 1927. That may have some impact on the numbers, but we'd have to see the numbers to determine that. And I can't find those numbers. But they'd be very helpful for the sake of argument.
 
To add, who cares if it is "not on the increase", they should be an extremely rare occurrence.
 
Back
Top Bottom