In wake of school shooting, Tennessee legislature acts to protect innocent and vulnerable gun manufacturers and dealers

[Wings like Eagles]

Yeah gun free zones dont make sense in a country were everyone, especially mentally ill people and convicted criminals and irresponsible minors, can acquire several with ease.

Define ease please?

 

[Wings like Eagles]

Works as intended.

 

[durangodawood]

Define ease please?

Likened unto the effort required to look up a word.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Works as intended.

Might want to fact-check your memes.

PolitiFact - Is the United States third in murders and are outlier cities to blame? No.

A viral meme shared on social media following the Parkland, Fla., shooting claimed the United States has the third-highe

www.politifact.com

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Works as intended.

The image you posted is false (hopefully you were just posting that for effect and not because you thought those numbers were accurate)

...while the cities listed do have a problem with violent crime, removing them from the equation has only a negligible impact on where we'd rank (on a global scale) in terms of intentional homicide rate.

Apart from the statistical error in the meme, St. Louis and Detroit don't have strict gun control laws as the meme suggests.

St. Louis is in a state with constitutional carry, and Detroit (Michigan) has some of the more permissive gun laws in the nation.

 

[Wings like Eagles]

Here is a better one, that is not so outdated.

 

[seeking.IAM]

A civilized society shouldn't have to fortify its schools to keep its children safe.

 

[Desk trauma]

I’m still pushing for posthumous medals for those who gave their lives so gun owners are not inconvenienced.

 

[Wings like Eagles]

A civilized society shouldn't have to fortify its schools to keep its children safe.

Maybe just politician's then .... oh wait.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Here is a better one, that is not so outdated.

So you'll admit that the previous graphic you shared was incorrect?

 

[Wings like Eagles]

Amy Swearer has some solutions but does not meet the narrative, so the killing continue.​

So what did everyone think about Amy's testimony, more specifically her recommendations?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Amy Swearer has some solutions but does not meet the narrative, so the killing continue.​

I see Amy takes her family name to heart...

 

[rambot]

Well, it's nice that TN.gov moves to protect someone. Too bad it is not school children.

I'd argue that anyone in support of this legislation also has no interest in protecting any of their fellow countryman.

Whatsoever.

Including children.

 

[expos4ever]

Well ......... How Joe Biden Turned Our Schools Into Shooting Galleries

Western Journalism as your source?

From Wikipedia: Because of negative rulings by fact-checking sites and user trust surveys, Western Journalism was blacklisted by Google and Apple News, and by 2017 its Facebook traffic declined to near zero.[7]

 

[rambot]

Most scared, uninformed people miss the target and blame the gun. Because that is the programing narrative being sold by the fake news and promoted by the enemies of liberty.

More buzz words than a honey farm here.

Find me a shooting death that doesn't involve a gun and then we can start to have a discussion as to whether a weapon can or cannot be used to blame for a shooting death.

Gun free zones kill people, and joe biden is the one who got the federal gun free zones laws passed. Resulting in a history of shooting kids .... like fish in a barrel.

Blaming Biden for the rampant use of guns in America makes as much sen.....no.
Not even that much.


It is a dumb statement that is not quantifiable.

But this is:

Heck....having SROs in schools didn't even bring school shooting numbers down. The ONLY thing that has worked HAS been gun bans.

Unless you can find other legislation that has had a positive effect.

 

[rambot]

Well ......... How Joe Biden Turned Our Schools Into Shooting Galleries

Impressive that the news opinion piece with no data supporting your supposition is only 5 years old.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Blaming Biden for the rampant use of guns in America makes as much sen.....no.
Not even that much.

I would agree with you there...gun culture in the US predates any president in my lifetime.

But this is:

For this one, I think I'd want to see more specifics on the data source they're using.

While I'm in favor of some gun control measures, the AWB seemed more like it was capitalizing on (and taking credit for) a trend that was already on a downward trajectory.

The homicide rates

Even when looking strictly at the mass shooting rates

It didn't really start to go through the roof until closer to 2016 (twelve years after the expiration of the AWB)

It's also fair to point out that different organizations have used different definitions of "mass shooting" over the years, and I think that makes it easy for people to "make data that matches their narrative" so to speak.

So if the "3 or more people being killed at one time in a public place" standard wasn't established until 2013 and prior to that it was a different set of criteria being used to define such a scenario, it makes sense that there would be more incidents reported meeting that criteria.

For example, the graph above only shows one mass shooting for 2001 (and zero for 2002).

However, by 2013+ standards, there would've been much more.

For instance, 2001 had 6 active shooter incidents that involved 43 casualties collectively
For 2002, there were 4 active shooter incidents that involved 29 casualties

While it may seem like splitting hairs differentiating between 3+ victims and 4+ victims, it is a worthwhile distinction to note in order to get a better feel for if a policy is actually working.

When you look at the numbers for incidents involving 3 or more victims:

It didn't really differ all that much when looking at pre, during, and post AWB



Certain publications also get even more creative with how they define it.

“Mother Jones has a much more narrow definition,” said Hemenway. The group maintains a database of every “mass shooting” since 2012, “[which it defines as] four people being killed, but it has to be in a public place and it can’t be a gang shooting or intimate partner violence.”

What counts as a mass shooting? The definition varies. - Poynter

A definitive answer to how many mass shootings there have been is difficult because organizations tracking such shootings use different methodologies.

www.poynter.org

 

[rambot]

I would agree with you there...gun culture in the US predates any president in my lifetime.



For this one, I think I'd want to see more specifics on the data source they're using.

While I'm in favor of some gun control measures, the AWB seemed more like it was capitalizing on (and taking credit for) a trend that was already on a downward trajectory.

The homicide rates
View attachment 330314

Even when looking strictly at the mass shooting rates
View attachment 330317

It didn't really start to go through the roof until closer to 2016 (twelve years after the expiration of the AWB)

It's also fair to point out that different organizations have used different definitions of "mass shooting" over the years, and I think that makes it easy for people to "make data that matches their narrative" so to speak.

So if the "3 or more people being killed at one time in a public place" standard wasn't established until 2013 and prior to that it was a different set of criteria being used to define such a scenario, it makes sense that there would be more incidents reported meeting that criteria.

For example, the graph above only shows one mass shooting for 2001 (and zero for 2002).

However, by 2013+ standards, there would've been much more.

For instance, 2001 had 6 active shooter incidents that involved 43 casualties collectively
For 2002, there were 4 active shooter incidents that involved 29 casualties

While it may seem like splitting hairs differentiating between 3+ victims and 4+ victims, it is a worthwhile distinction to note in order to get a better feel for if a policy is actually working.

When you look at the numbers for incidents involving 3 or more victims:
View attachment 330319

It didn't really differ all that much when looking at pre, during, and post AWB



Certain publications also get even more creative with how they define it.

“Mother Jones has a much more narrow definition,” said Hemenway. The group maintains a database of every “mass shooting” since 2012, “[which it defines as] four people being killed, but it has to be in a public place and it can’t be a gang shooting or intimate partner violence.”

What counts as a mass shooting? The definition varies. - Poynter

A definitive answer to how many mass shootings there have been is difficult because organizations tracking such shootings use different methodologies.

www.poynter.org

I am ALL in favour of being analyzing data. But the metrics I included were "mass shooting fatalities" and "mass shooting deaths". I can see your points, but pragmatically, what these serve to do is muddy the waters and distract. The data you present doesn't REALLY change the data I presented though the delay of 14 years is certainly noteable and, of course, the lack of consistent definitions is a problem when comparing data. But it's not as though the lack of consistency is then saying "Gun control does NOT work".

In your first "homocide" graph, I'm not sure that is a great chart to consider "trends" since you only have 4 years previous to the Ban. I'm not saying it's not there, just that the graph doesn't REALLY show a trend pre. Frankly, THAT graph is more like to show that the AWB cause the lowering of the homocide rate. Also, one could note on your graph that after the AWB ban was lifted, homocide rates FLATTENNED.

And as for "rates" of mass shooting, I ABSOLUTELY agree that it (generally) has been had a consistent increase recently but I'm not sure if that's a sensible metric to use, at least to COUNTER the idea of a AWB. Frankly, I would think that if you would see the MASSIVE increase in mass shootings the FIRST thing you'd want to do is have legislation that took the most lethal and efficient killing machines out of the hands of people if there is a growing tendency for wanting to shoot a lot of people at once.

I appreciate your arguments but I also worry when folks are overly critical about numbers that it empowers people who are already misinformed.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I am ALL in favour of being analyzing data. But the metrics I included were "mass shooting fatalities" and "mass shooting deaths". I can see your points, but pragmatically, what these serve to do is muddy the waters and distract. The data you present doesn't REALLY change the data I presented though the delay of 14 years is certainly noteable and, of course, the lack of consistent definitions is a problem when comparing data. But it's not as though the lack of consistency is then saying "Gun control does NOT work".

In your first "homocide" graph, I'm not sure that is a great chart to consider "trends" since you only have 4 years previous to the Ban. I'm not saying it's not there, just that the graph doesn't REALLY show a trend pre. Frankly, THAT graph is more like to show that the AWB cause the lowering of the homocide rate. Also, one could note on your graph that after the AWB ban was lifted, homocide rates FLATTENNED.

And as for "rates" of mass shooting, I ABSOLUTELY agree that it (generally) has been had a consistent increase recently but I'm not sure if that's a sensible metric to use, at least to COUNTER the idea of a AWB. Frankly, I would think that if you would see the MASSIVE increase in mass shootings the FIRST thing you'd want to do is have legislation that took the most lethal and efficient killing machines out of the hands of people if there is a growing tendency for wanting to shoot a lot of people at once.

I appreciate your arguments but I also worry when folks are overly critical about numbers that it empowers people who are already misinformed.

My thought process is that if the AWB didn't cause anything deviation from the trend things were already on (and maybe that trend was going down for other reasons), it's worthwhile knowing what those other reasons were so we can put a fair amount of resources into those policies.

So to give a little more perspective with regards to the homicide rates (which, as you said, it's fair to point out my previous numbers didn't start that long before the ban)

It stayed pretty high throughout the 80's but was slowly starting to come down before the AWB, and after the AWB, continued to trend downward.

I suspect that the end of "Reaganomics" and the introduction of more Keynesian approaches to economics probably drove the homicide and crime rates down more than an assault weapons ban did. At the end of the day, we know that systemic poverty creates an environment that crime seems to flourish in.

If it turns out that poverty-addressing measures were mainly the force behind bringing crime (and violent crime) rates down (and the AWB just happened to be something that was happening during the time that occurred), then trying to get in another AWB may be a well-intentioned, but misdirected use of effort.


But, one would be fair in pointing out that many far-right conservatives would be just as opposed to more Keynesian economic policies at they would be to gun control, so both efforts may not bear much fruit as long as our legislature stays pretty evenly balanced between the two parties.

 

[rambot]

My thought process is that if the AWB didn't cause anything deviation from the trend things were already on (and maybe that trend was going down for other reasons), it's worthwhile knowing what those other reasons were so we can put a fair amount of resources into those policies.

So to give a little more perspective with regards to the homicide rates (which, as you said, it's fair to point out my previous numbers didn't start that long before the ban)
View attachment 330321

It stayed pretty high throughout the 80's but was slowly starting to come down before the AWB, and after the AWB, continued to trend downward.

yyyyyeah...okay.... I guess KINDA it was trending down before hand but I will CERTAINLY grant that after the ban was lifted the homocide rate continues to drop.

Honestly though, to me it doesn't really make sense to even really tie assault rifles to EVERY homocide. I think the assault rifle conversation should be held EXCLUSIVELY to data that compare multiple fatalities and not homocides as a whole given (though this is just a personal theory) most homocides are perpetrated with handguns.

And yes, I am 100% on board with poverty mitigation strategies of ANY kind, especially to help deal with rising violence.