Although the term is used, in the slide that references assault weapons or high capacity weapons, the percentage of use of such weapons was pretty low, but the number of victims per incident were much higher. I don't think it's exaggerating anything. It is about what one would expect in terms of: not as prevalent as many assume, higher number of victims per incident, which is the point of high capacity weapons.

 

Which is exactly why they worded it the way they did. Focus on the big numbers and not so much on the little ones. And hopefully forget we are talking about MASS SHOOTINGS not just shootings in general. Good ole fashioned propaganda right there.

I'm certainly not an anti-gun advocate, but that seems like a very poor argument. It's got to be much easier to defend yourself against an axe, sledgehammer, and machete. You see the guy coming, you can at least do your best to run away. Can't really say the same about a gun.

 

I get what he's saying and I understand where you're coming from. But I wouldn't want to fight someone in a gun free zone that's coming at me in a car with an Axe or sledgehammer. I get both sides. The thing is its not the guns that kill people its the people that go crazy that do that.

 

So you found it interesting that people that could NOT legally own a gun chose to break the law and kill someone? I'm curious as to what gun law or restrictions you think may stop that from happening in the future? Serious question RM???

 

I found the whole study to be interesting because of the fact that domestic mass shootings are higher in number than what is commonly discussed. I am not in this discussion to say anything can stop people from getting a gun illegally. I am just making an observation that obviously our focus in defining mass shootings is skewed toward the incidents that are "random" or "anonymous", when the larger number are actually domestic incidents. And it seems our system of protecting people in cases of domestic violence needs work.

 

A shotgun is typically used for hunting and yes its legal. I will give you this though if you can shoot and want some bang for your buck a shotgun is a devastating weapon. I wasn't a big fan until just recently.

 

I know what a shotgun is used for. I find it disturbing that one can just sell it without restriction in a Facebook group.

Different studies IMO. I don't believe this study is meant to be comprehensive, but more of a high level view of mass shootings.

[opinion]

The "study" was nothing but a piece of political propaganda. When liberal totalitarians like Michael Bloomberg and George Soros invest millions of their own dollars into these nonprofit organizations, the reports that such groups disseminate become meaningless. "Non-profit" is not a synonym for "objective."

 

The vast quantities of weapons and ammunition that the Obama administration has fielded to our civilian federal government agencies is a far, far greater to this nation's safety and security than all mass shootings committed by individual Americans ever will be.

 

The propagation of anti-Second Amendment "studies" such as the one that you cited have one goal - to give the government a near-monopoly on gun ownership. Of course, billionaires like Bloomberg and Soros will carve out exceptions for their licensed body guards.

[/opinion]

Okay, I've read through the study, I found the info on domestic violence interesting as well. That said, I see this as muddying the waters so to speak. I feel they have purposely combined two or three different types of violence to achieve a common goal, more gun restrictions or possibly a larger scale gun ban. I wholeheartedly believe Michael Bloomberg would like nothing more than to see a complete ban of all firearms.

 

I don't think you can mix domestic violence shootings with work place shootings and random mass shootings the way this study did. It skews the data. Why not add drug related and gang related shootings? Because it skews the data and doesn't achieve their goal. These are different animals with different approaches in my opinion and you have to look at them separately. I don't get the feel that this study is concerned with lowering the number of domestic violence when I read it, I get the feel it's main concern is gun control.

 

One think I agree with completely is spindoc's opinion that psychotropic drugs likely play a huge role. Most likely, I feel, they are to blame for the vast majority of random mass shootings. I also think they play a huge role in workplace shootings and feel they are very likely the main culprit in a large percentage of domestic shootings. Like other's, these are my opinions and, of coarse, are up for debate.

Don't want to sound crazy here, but what about a study of all other type of weapons in "people" violence incidents. So much higher than just the gun issue. Let's face it. People are crazy nowadays. Let's figure out why the overall senseless violence has increased so much.

Have you read the newest laws that just went in effect this week regarding people with EPO's? Allows them to get a concealed carry permit in an expedited time frame. Not preaching to you just thought you'd like to know about it. I think it's a good move to protect people.

Yeah I saw that, I think if I remember correctly they get the permit right away but still have to complete the course within 30 or 45 days. It will be interesting to see how well this works.

Yeah I saw that, I think if I remember correctly they get the permit right away but still have to complete the course within 30 or 45 days. It will be interesting to see how well this works.

 

Yea kinda my take as well. Sounds good in theory though.

And here is a larger problem I alluded to earlier. Let's just assume that we did find, through thorough study, that the med(s) was the underlying chemical issue. Not discounting other environmental issues like domestic violence and others. But the common denominator was a med issue. I can't believe that any elected government official would want to attack that windmill. Eli Lilly, for example, manufactures prozac. Perhaps I'm simply jaded when it comes to the motives of our elected officials, but can you believe that there would be one willing to call Eli Lilly to the carpet, for example?

 

You are right on with the pharm lobby power, and it would be interesting to see the study of meds. But when anyone puts guns into the equation as a contributor, well the 2nd Amendment flags go up and the NRA bullies its way to legislators, also.

 

If there are probably many variables and probable cause to the violence, then all of them, including guns. should be on the table, when they are the NRA again starts pointing fingers elsewhere. Many think guns are on the table, but they are not.

 

I don't think Bloomberg's group is always correct either because they are on the totally opposite side of the solution with guns. My problem is and always has been there has really never been, that I have seen, a completely comprehensive study of all possible causes to define the real problem/s or cause/s.

 

We again are trying to find a solution to a problem that has yet to be defined comprehensively. That will take everyone coming to the table in good faith. Money and perceived rights will never let that happen.

You are right on with the pharm lobby power, and it would be interesting to see the study of meds. But when anyone puts guns into the equation as a contributor, well the 2nd Amendment flags go up and the NRA bullies its way to legislators, also.

 

If there are probably many variables and probable cause to the violence, then all of them, including guns. should be on the table, when they are the NRA again starts pointing fingers elsewhere. Many think guns are on the table, but they are not.

 

I don't think Bloomberg's group is always correct either because they are on the totally opposite side of the solution with guns. My problem is and always has been there has really never been, that I have seen, a completely comprehensive study of all possible causes to define the real problem/s or cause/s.

 

We again are trying to find a solution to a problem that has yet to be defined comprehensively. That will take everyone coming to the table in good faith. Money and perceived rights will never let that happen.

Unfortunately, because of dishonest politicians and anti-gun groups hellbent on banning all guns, we need groups like the NRA to fight (lobby) for 2nd amendment rights.

 

I agree that there are many variables and cause for the violence. I disagree that guns are one of the causes. Guns are simply what they choose to use for the violence, they're not a cause. A gun doesn't cause anyone to shoot someone any more than a car causes someone to drive drunk.

Unfortunately, because of dishonest politicians and anti-gun groups hellbent on banning all guns, we need groups like the NRA to fight (lobby) for 2nd amendment rights.

 

I agree that there are many variables and cause for the violence. I disagree that guns are one of the causes. Guns are simply what they choose to use for the violence, they're not a cause. A gun doesn't cause anyone to shoot someone any more than a car causes someone to drive drunk.

 

And therefore, the solution will never be found. Thanks for supporting my response.

Gun ownership is not a perceived right in this country - it is a real one and will remain so until the Second Amendment is repealed. It is a right that deserves as much respect and any other constitutional right.

And therefore, the solution will never be found. Thanks for supporting my response.

As long as there are those that want to blame something that's not a cause to push their agenda, you're right. You're helping them if you think the gun is the problem.

As long as there are those that want to blame something that's not a cause to push their agenda' date=' you're right. You're helping them if you think the gun is the problem.[/quote']

 

My biggest issue right now, after learning that one can sell a gun online, with a meet up at a roadside inn, is that anyone can buy a gun, regardless of any reasons they aren't legally able to do so. I think that is a loophole that needs to be addressed. A lot is said about the fact that those who want a fire arm can get one, well, yeah....we don't even have anything in place to stop those not legally able to own a fire arm from doing so.