WTF?

[GeorgesGoons]

Using 3 fatalities as a base for a mass shooting I counted 198. I know one for sure was a biker shootout.

[dakshdar]

Using 3 fatalities as a base for a mass shooting I counted 198. I know one for sure was a biker shootout.

I don't think they were using fatalities for the 355 count number. They're stating total number of individuals shot instead. It somewhat makes sense: why tie the count to how good of a shot the person is? If they shoot up a place and hit a dozen people and no one dies does that not qualify as a mass shooting?

At what point does a city like Chicago just enter into a situation where they have to (not literally) wall off a portion of the city where the largest amount of shootings is taking place, and start going door to door unannounced searching for weapons and other illegal activity. Those that are guilty are taken away, those that are innocent have their personal space and lives violated for a brief moment in order to have a (presumably) safer existence afterwards. And then you start from zero with plans in place to prevent it from just going back to shit immediately after you remove the cancer from the community.

People will say "you can't violate people's rights like that!" but at what point do you consider it because you can't control the problem in any other way (and at what point would people eventually welcome it)?

[GeorgesGoons]

Using 3 fatalities as a base for a mass shooting I counted 198. I know one for sure was a biker shootout.

I don't think they were using fatalities for the 355 count number. They're stating total number of individuals shot instead. It somewhat makes sense: why tie the count to how good of a shot the person is? If they shoot up a place and hit a dozen people and no one dies does that not qualify as a mass shooting?

At what point does a city like Chicago just enter into a situation where they have to (not literally) wall off a portion of the city where the largest amount of shootings is taking place, and start going door to door unannounced searching for weapons and other illegal activity. Those that are guilty are taken away, those that are innocent have their personal space and lives violated for a brief moment in order to have a (presumably) safer existence afterwards. And then you start from zero with plans in place to prevent it from just going back to shit immediately after you remove the cancer from the community.

People will say "you can't violate people's rights like that!" but at what point do you consider it because you can't control the problem in any other way (and at what point would people eventually welcome it)?

I was using the definition of a mass shooting that Jason used and contested the definition. That is how I came up with 198.

I absolutely love your idea. But the law abiding citizens, probably upwards of over 90%, would have their civil liberties violated (which I am somewhat against). If all the law abiding citizens, we'll use Chicago since that is what you used, were okay with this then I am all for it. But giving them a heads up also gives the lawless a heads up to get rid of their weapons.

[dakshdar]

I though the definition he used was just 4 victims (dead or wounded), not 4 fatalities?

Anyway, yeah, no clue how you make it happen for the other thing. Maybe you announce that you're going to do it, and then you set up enough survelliance that instead of having to do the searches you can catch the lawless dumping their weapons. And, wouldn't them dumping their weapons, even if you don't catch them in the act, curtail some crime and violence on its own? Then you'd need to flood the area with undercover people posing as sources for people to "re-arm" and you catch a whole bunch more that you didn't during the dumping... As for the civil liberties, it's a tough question. At what point can the rights of the individual not be used to hold up a process aimed at protecting the lives of the many.

[jsence2]

The San Bernardino shooting was the 355th mass shooting this year. Gun violence has reached epidemic levels in the United States. Over the past decade, 275,000 Americans have been killed by guns. …

I am curious how many of those were killed by "law abiding" gun owners. Obviously they aren't law abiding if they committed murder but 1) how many of the people that killed someone obtained their guns legally, I am sure the gang bangers out there aren't buying their guns legally. 2) How many in those numbers are justifiable kills, whether it is a cop killing someone or some random grandma killing a home invader. I would bet that the 275k killed would be greatly reduced.

I'm just too lazy to find the real answers

And that's the thing. The people who are against gun control are the NRA and gun lobbyists....WHY?!?!?!

They use the complaint of "oh, well it will infringe on my right to own a gun"

NO IT WON'T!!! Unless you're obtaining it illegally, you're obtaining it for an illegal purpose, or you're wanting it to use it immediately (which usually means you shouldn't have it), the only thing that might happen is that you can't get that all-powerful, high capacity assault rifle that you don't NEED.

The lobbyists don't want gun control because profits are profits, regardless of who buys the product or how it's purchased.

What kills me the most is that the same politicians who want to ban abortions, drugs, immigration, etc turn around and claim that a ban on weapons won't stop anything, the people who truly want them will still get them. Well guess what? The people who truly want abortions will find a way to do that too. The people who truly want drugs will find a way to get those too. The people who want to find their way into this country really badly will find a way. It's hypocritical rhetoric.

[jsence2]

A mass shooting consists of four or more victims (either wounded or dead)

This graphic is just a gut shot. Over the last 1,066 days, there have been 1,052 mass shootings in the United States

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-i ... n-violence

So where are you getting the definition for mass shooting? Here is what I found:

Mass shootings can be a form of mass murder, which is commonly categorized as the murder of four or more people with no cooling off period.[1] According to CNN, a mass shooting is defined as having four or more fatalities, not including gang killings or slayings that involve the death of multiple family members.[3]In "Behind the Bloodshed", a report by USAToday, a mass killing is defined as any incident in which four or more were killed and also includes family killings.[4]

Spoiler!

[1]Follman, Mark. "What Exactly Is A Mass Shooting". Mother Jones. Retrieved August 9, 2015.
http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/18/1/105.short
[3]Christensen, Jen (August 28, 2015). "Why the U.S. has the most mass shootings". CNN.
[4]"Behind the Bloodshed". USA Today. Retrieved 3 December 2015.

Chicago consists of 49 of such shootings by your definition. Chicago has some strict gun laws right?

The graphic I posted includes those shootings from Chicago that have four or more casualties. And again, STATE/CITY LAWS won't have any effect, it has to be done on the federal level. Kentucky can impose harsh gun control, but I can drive 15 minutes to Indiana to see my mom, stop by the gun store in Clarksville, and purchase one there and bring it home.

[GeorgesGoons]

a report just came out saying the female shooter pledged allegiance to ISIS.

Why is there no pictures of her by now? Anyone find that odd?

[tball275]

a report just came out saying the female shooter pledged allegiance to ISIS.

Why is there no pictures of her by now? Anyone find that odd?

It's because they said she used many different names. The name she pledged allegiance to ISIS online was under a different name. She also deleted those posts.

[GeorgesGoons]

a report just came out saying the female shooter pledged allegiance to ISIS.

Why is there no pictures of her by now? Anyone find that odd?

It's because they said she used many different names. The name she pledged allegiance to ISIS online was under a different name. She also deleted those posts.

makes sense

[GeorgesGoons]

I don't know how these loved ones can go on TV so soon after this tragic event. I would be an emotional wreck if that happened to my wife, son, father or mother.

I had a hard enough time after my dad died, couldn't imagine talking to strangers right afterwards

[Seeitsaveit13]

[nick]

:\

seeit, say a couple prayers and change your fb pic. that'll stop the bullets... ... ...

[GeorgesGoons]

So the debate if someone is on the terror list or no fly list being allowed to buy a gun. Why don't we round up every one of them, investigate them and either charge them with terrorism or take them off those lists. Am I the only one that thinks we should shit or get off the pot, no reason to keep people on a list if you never charge them with anything.

[Crowes]

So the debate if someone is on the terror list or no fly list being allowed to buy a gun. Why don't we round up every one of them, investigate them and either charge them with terrorism or take them off those lists. Am I the only one that thinks we should shit or get off the pot, no reason to keep people on a list if you never charge them with anything.

From what I read the government doesn't need hard evidence of a crime to add someone to a no fly list just "reasonable suspicion". So dunno what they could be charged with. To me the scenario that banning them from buying weapons legally would be if someone had done something to tip the government off that are becoming radicalized but yet haven't done anything to break a law. Thus those are the people that are on a watch list so therefore say they do cross the line to where they want to commit a violent act they shouldn't be able to buy a gun so easily.

Then we're gonna here that if they want a gun bad enough they will find a way to get one while that may be true but if this law deters one violent act from being committed then in my mind its a no brainer.

[shel311]

Which one of the shooters from California was on the no fly list, the wife?

[Crowes]

Which one of the shooters from California was on the no fly list, the wife?

I dont think she was but there are almost 50,000 on it now that can buy any gun they want with no extra attention brought to them from what I understand.

[shel311]

So wait, this whole no fly list thing just popped up for no apparent reason?

WTF

[GeorgesGoons]

But there are people on these no fly lists just because they share a name with a terrorist. Shouldn't that person be able to buy a gun? I say yes, the only thing they have done wrong is share a name.

[shel311]

I assumed one of the shooters was on this list, so weird that we just made up some thing we all of a sudden have to ban that has nothing to do with any of these recent mass shootings apparently.

[Crowes]

I assumed one of the shooters was on this list, so weird that we just made up some thing we all of a sudden have to ban that has nothing to do with any of these recent mass shootings apparently.

lol I dont think it was just made up after this most recent shooting just getting extra attention to shine a light on how lax some of the gun laws in this country are.