No, There Haven’t Been 251 Mass Shootings This Year

slate 251 mass shootings

Courtesy slate.com

This is TTAG’s weekly roundup of legal and legislative news affecting guns, the gun business and gun owners’ rights. 

Apologies for the late roundup this week. What was rounding up to be a very uneventful week in the firearm world when we were shaken by a series of back-to-back mass murders. Over the past several days, we’ve seen a very interesting rhetoric suggesting that there have been 250 “mass shootings” in the United States this year. This might shock you. You might even find it unbelievable. That’s because it is unbelievable.

The gun control crowd capitalizing upon a catastrophe is nothing new. Neither is intentionally misleading people with undefined or vaguely defined terms like “mass shooting.”

Anyone who sincerely believes there have been 250 mass shootings, as we understand them, in the United States in just over half a year must be living in a horrifying parallel reality.

This number is pulled from the “gun violence archive,” an anti-gun organization that aggregates certain data. The problem is that the site is very “black box,” making it difficult to understand how and why it classifies certain incidents.

That said, it seems the majority of incidents the site calls “mass shootings” involve no deaths and several injuries. Remember, also, that “injuries” does not necessarily mean gunshots.

It appears that, under the GVA model, if a gun goes off in a parking lot, and four people trip and fall, the incident qualifies in their book. This obviously isn’t the type of thing anyone considers a “mass shooting.”

The only curative measure we can have here is to accept a definition of “mass shooting.” I believe the Mother Jones definition fairly encapsulates the concern.

California Festival Shooting

Rita Vadnais works at selling “#Gilroy Strong” T-shirts, with proceeds benefiting shooting victims, at Windermere Real Estate in Gilroy, Calif. (AP Photo/Haven Daley)

Gilroy Shooting Exposes Opponents of Federalism

Last week, a mass killing at a Californian festival put California, as ever, in the public spotlight. The killer employed a WASR-10, an inexpensive Romanian-sourced AKM derivative (many will misreport the WASR as an AK-47 derivative, despite its post-modernization stamped receiver).

That said, it doesn’t take a rocket theologist to see the problem: AKMs are verboten in California. So, clearly, the fact that an AKM-derivative made it into the state of California means we need to re-think our entire system of government. Or so the gun control reactionaries suggest, searching for a way to absolve California of any possible maladministration in the wake of the murders.

The response is about as devoid of nuance as one might expect. Of course California couldn’t protect their residents from “assault weapons,” because other jurisdictions exist! How is California expected to rid the world of particular firearms when Nevada dares to wield its sovereignty in an incompatible manner?!

This type of reporting, focusing on the fact that states have different laws, is difficult to construe as anything less than a full-on recantation of federalism. But in reality, the concept of a border having a significant effect on policy-making decisions cuts both ways in the political cloth. The real question is whether, in a particular instance, you want the federal government to impose a floor or a ceiling.

In the abortion context, progressives clamor for a federally imposed floor for abortion rights, while demanding a ceiling for gun rights, with “law and order” conservatives operating in the inverse. We can see that, in both instances, it is “federalism for me and not for thee.”

The reality is that, if we are going to operate in a system of interconnected jurisdictions and governmental powers, borders have to mean something. If both North and South Carolina have lawmaking authority, the fact that one bans something that the other doesn’t is not a flaw of the federalist system.

Arguing that it is, though, is nothing more or less than an attempted referendum on the federalization of any policy.

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (AP Photo/Steve Cannon)

Florida Appeals Gun Law Supremacy Suit

Last week we covered Florida’s supremacy problem, where a group of local governments banded together to sue the state over a law that imposed penalties for violating the state’s supremacy law, and passing local gun laws stricter than state law. The Circuit Court sided with the local governments, who wanted to violate the law without the added stress of fines, something they may have in common with their constituencies who have ever been extorted or held at gunpoint after driving 7-over in a fake construction zone.

Florida’s AG is appealing the decision, but in a move that couldn’t possibly be political, the Agriculture Commissioner (whatever that is), the lone Democrat in the state cabinet, is urging the Attorney General to drop the appeal. As for why, Commissioner Nikki Fried made vague, circular allusions to having fulfilled her “legal obligation as a defendant,” and, to complete the ritual, talismanically invoked the influence of the NRA. Or something.

The profound irony of this situation would almost escape you, given the clearly principled, not at all hackish lauding of the Circuit Judge’s ruling. All you have to do to “snap out of it” is remember that this isn’t a question of changing the law. Everyone knows that, in Florida, gun control is out of local hands. This lawsuit is entirely about whether or not the local governments can skirt the penalties for violating state law.

At the same time, the Coral Gables mayor announced that he is already planning on violating state law to restrict the rights of his constituents, now that he knows he won’t be among those harmed by ill-informed alarmist expansions of the criminal law.

Andrew Cuomo gun control don't kill bill

Bigstock

Cuomo Signs Bump Stock Ban and High-Capacity Waiting Period

Gun policy mastermind Andrew Cuomo just finished marinating in self-regard after signing into law two new gun controls. One is a bump stock ban, the utility of which is dubious even without the ATF’s illegal reclassification of the devices, seems especially strange.

Is this a tacit acknowledgement of the impropriety of the ATF’s ban? Or is it just more empty political grandstanding? Both? Who knows.

comments

  1. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    In Florida the Agriculture Commissioner is responsible for the issuance of nearly all professional licenses. Even CCWs. Go figure. My ex has to go through the Agriculture Commissioner for her physical therapy license. What do you think an elected Agriculture Commissioner knows about physical therapy, or firearms?

    1. Fried is Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

      You point is a good one and still stands, of course. What does a consumer services commissioner know about physical therapy of firearms?

  2. avatar jwm says:

    Well of course it ain’t true. vlad the liar said it was true.

    How can you tell when vlad is lying? His fingers are typing.

  3. avatar Geoff WWJWD - "What would John Wick do?" PR says:

    Since this involves legal things, I’m dropping this right here :

    “Trump To Address Nation Monday Over Mass Shootings, Says More Gun Control May Be Needed”

    “In the wake of multiple mass shootings over the weekend, President Trump told reporters in Morristown Airport before departing for the White House on Sunday that “hate has no place in our country and we’re going to take care of it.””

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-04/trump-address-nation-monday-over-mass-shootings-says-more-gun-control-may-be-needed

    I am *not* gonna be happy if that happens, and the folks on his 2A advisory board and his kids had better let Trump know this shit is unacceptable…

    1. avatar Geoff WWJWD - "What would John Wick do?" PR says:

      If he wants to be a one-term president, that is guaranteed the way to do it…

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Yeah, I saw that on ZH today, too. Not liking the looks of this. Please keep Wayne LaPierre away from the Oval Office discussions…

        1. avatar neiowa says:

          Yeah because Pres Trump doesn’t OWE LaPierre/NRA? You newbee political amateurs are such a pita with all your know it all BS.

    2. avatar Sian says:

      If Trump comes out in favor of more gun control will the TDS bunch pivot to oppose him?

      1. avatar Geoff WWJWD - "What would John Wick do?" PR says:

        ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ is real, but if he does this, he can forget about my vote…

      2. avatar California Richard says:

        Certainly puts them in an interesting spot. Maybe more 4D chess?

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          After what he did the “the squad” last month, I wouldn’t put anything past him. He played the media and the Demokkkommie party like fiddles. Just watch the latest “debates”, right now the demokkkommie coandidates are competing over who can suck the most dust out of Stalin’s mummified dick.

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          Sergei, here you are, talking about gay sex again. You seem to spend a lot of time thinking about men sucking dicks, I wonder why that is…

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          I was more on the desecrating a commie corpse… but hey, whatever works for you commie.

    3. avatar CarlosT says:

      As a Second Amendment supporter, the Trump administration looks like a losing proposition. He is not on our side. People say “imagine what Clinton would have done,” but her proposals would have been blocked,just as Obama’s were. Trump will shove gun control down our throats, and his supporters will cheer it as a stroke of unprecedented brilliance.

      1. avatar Hank says:

        That all depends on control of Congress, however. Yes, following 2016 Hillary May have been hampered if the Congress remained in GOP hands. That may not be the case going forward, as we could end up with a democrat president and Congress after 2020. Now, I’ll agree, Trump with a democrat congress could still easily get us some gun control too. So the moral of the story is, whatever you do come election time, keep Congress red.

      2. avatar Geoff WWJWD - "What would John Wick do?" PR says:

        “People say “imagine what Clinton would have done,” but her proposals would have been blocked,just as Obama’s were.”

        You do recall Hillary stating that the ‘Heller’ decision was wrongly decided, don’t you?

        You would have been cool with “Kagan 2 and ‘Wise Latina” Sotomayor 2” on SCOTUS for *life*?

        Ar you on drugs, Carlos?

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Nah, he’s a Never Trumper still suffering from severe TDS. In all honesty, I’m not sure where Trump is going with this, but the response from the left will be interesting either way.

        2. avatar Geoff WWJWD - "What would John Wick do?" PR says:

          “I’m not sure where Trump is going with this,…”

          Past history with him after mass shootings can be instructive, Serge.

          What did Trump do after the Las Vegas murders?

          Buh-bye bump stocks.

          Care to extrapolate on where he may go on semi-autos? How about no more new and all existing go on the NFA?

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          I think you’re letting your paranoia get to you. Like I said, I’m not putting money on it, but Monday gives Trump an excellent opportunity to stick it to the left and their “gun free” zones.

        4. avatar CarlosT says:

          So Heller and MacDonald would have been overturned, maybe. Legislation would still have to get passed, and unlike now there would be opposition. Trump is signaling he’s on board for more gun control and Serge is still taking the “wait and see” approach. We waited and saw on bump stocks. He said what he was going to do and he did it. Now they’re banned, and he did it in the most illegal way possible.

          True to form, Trump will probably just have the ATF write semi-autos into the NFA. And Serge will exalt it as a stunning display of cunning and guile.

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          You know Carlos, for cases that are still pending you’re jumping to an awful lot of conclusions. As I said before, I’ll wait for the cases to make their way through the courts. While the pre-trial injunction denial was not a great sign, I’m actually a bit mixed on the matter as I don’t like judicial activism prior to cases being argued. A temporary bump-stock ban, while this mess makes its way through the courts, is hardly the sort of irreparable harm that an injunction is supposed to block. Sure, it’s an inconvenience, but the feds will be on the hook for every bump stock turned in or destroyed and Slide Fire would make a killing on any eventual settlement.

          I just don’t see Trump shooting himself in the foot with anything major. What we might see is a directive for federal prosecutors to track down lies on 4473s. Maybe. These past few months, he’s learned a lot about bowing to demands from leftists and about how to play the Stalinist/Islamist wing of the DNC like a fiddle. I do see an official move to brand ANTIFA and the “alt-right” (who should more properly be labeled “alt-left” due to their “progressive” platform) as domestic terrorist organizations. Given that the latest nutjob was a card carrying ANTIFA member…

        6. avatar neiowa says:

          The bump stock thing is not over until is survives legal appeals. Pres Trump has learned a lot about politics and the art of the political deal. Can stake out any position that may be popular/essential in the moment if you know it will not happen/survive.

          If “Red flag” even survives for a month then the President was wrong about suggesting it. Does McConnell have the spine to let it die is the question. The US House will, obviously, pass any commie legislation.

    4. avatar Rusty - Molon Labe - Chains says:

      Caught that info from one of the Youtubers I watch. I already have a response ready to go to my two Senators and my Congressman. I also have a response ready to go to Trump as well. The next thing I did was donate to GOA (cause NRA would just blow the money on lawyers and suits for Wayne) and change my Amazon Smile donations to GOA since they had a link right on their join/donate page.

      Trump might surprise me, but we shall see.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        John, thanks for posting a photo of one of the greatest gay actors ever! Gomer Pyle, USMC!

        While I am surprised by your post of Jim’s photo, I applaud your recognition of such a talented individual.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          You’re very welcome. Jim Nabors was a talented actor indeed. Although, I wasn’t a big fan of his singing.

        2. avatar neiowa says:

          What made him a great queer? Volume or frequency of degeneracy?

  4. avatar enuf says:

    Trump said that at 10AM Monday he will reveal what his people have been working on this weekend. I figure it will depend on how he now sees the issue in terms of his own self interest. Predicting that is total guesswork, there’s no telling how he will see what actions are to his benefit. Remember that with Trump it does not have to make sense to anybody but him.

    Could go either way with Trump. He never was a gun guy or a Second Amendment guy. He’s just a con artist that suckered $30,000,000 out of the NRA and just barely enough Electoral votes to beat Shrillary Clinton.

    What a mess.

    1. avatar Geoff WWJWD - "What would John Wick do?" PR says:

      “He’s just a con artist that suckered $30,000,000 out of the NRA and just barely enough Electoral votes to beat Shrillary Clinton.”

      Huh.

      So, you would have no problem at all if President Hillary had replaced Scalia and one other retired Justice (Kennedy) with Kagan 2 and ‘Wise Latina” Sotomayor 2?

      1. avatar Rusty - Molon Labe - Chains says:

        And the replacements for Ginsburg and Breyer are the only reasons I can see for voting for Trump. It is enough to leave you feeling like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis.

        1. avatar coffeemonster says:

          Using this^, thanks!
          I walked by one of their remaining bldgs in MI – nobody there but spiders

  5. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    I will stay home on election day if the President does anything to further erode the 2nd Amendment.

    I’m just one person but that’s my course and I’m sticking to it.

    1. avatar Hank says:

      You don’t have to do that, you can still vote for congress and your local politicians. Control of Congress is ultimately far more important then the presidency anyway.

    2. avatar M1Lou says:

      Congress went to the dems because republicans sat on their asses at home. Some Republicans did not campaigning as they thought they was no way they could lose. Now look at what kind of people we have in office.

      1. avatar Anymouse says:

        There were also an unusually large number of Rep retirements.

    3. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      ”””””””””””””””””””’I will stay home on election day if the President does anything to further erode the 2nd Amendment.

      I’m just one person but that’s my course and I’m sticking to it.”””””””””””

      Looks like you will not be voting then in 2020.

      1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

        Perhaps, but that does not mean I will comply with any new erosion of the BOR either.

  6. avatar pwrserge says:

    Hm… I’m going to be watching this once closely. It’s a great opportunity for Trump to push the debate where it belongs (the absurd failure of Obamacare mental health services) or he could score an own goal. He’s been doing ok lately, let’s see where it goes.

    Right now, I wouldn’t put money either way. He does have an opportunity to call out the left for normalizing political violence.

    1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      to pwrserge

      quote———————- (the absurd failure of Obamacare mental health services)=======================

      You live in a fantasy world. It was the Republicans who succeeded in watering down the National Health Care Act which left 30 million Americans without the health coverage they formerly had under the National Health Care Act. You must live in a cave not to have been aware of all of this.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Yeah… tell me more about how it was Republicans that passed O’bongo’bongo care. “If you like your witchdoctor, you can keep your witchdoctor.”

        Though I do love the fact that the truth about the Ohio shooter is finally coming out.

        Flabby soy boy? Check.
        Has his pronouns in his profile? Check
        Hates Trump? Check
        Calls himself a “socialist”? Check
        Supports Pocahontas? Check

        Confirmed ANTIFA soy-boy? Check

        1. avatar Anymouse says:

          Get the pun right, he was a Fauxahontas supporter –as in a fake Pocahontas. Warren falsely claimed to be Cherokee, but Pocahontas was Powhatan. Without the pun, it’s like trying to mock a guy pretending to be Italian by calling him Pierre.

  7. avatar B.D. says:

    I don’t care if there were 1,000 mass shootings this year. The answer is NOT to punish law abiding citizens. The answer is NOT attempting to remove guns from those who follow “the law”. The answer will certainly NOT come from an equation where you think just because you pass a law that all the sudden, criminals will start to follow it. We have millions of DUI’s every year… and that is already illegal, right? Most people who get DUI’s probably even consider themselves “law abiding” tax paying citizens. So… in a society where guns are literally our right to self defense, and defense against a tyrannical government, how do you punish these acts? Well, you can start by not making them famous. Start by not asking “why won’t we do something?” Instead, you can start by not calling instant word of mouth “facts” If these people really want to do something, they should focus on how they approach these incidents. Making crazy people into martyrs is certainly not helping. But we all know the worst part is: They blame the item that crazy person used. It fit’s their sheltered narrative. When Timothy Mcveigh used a U-haul to blow up buildings, did they tell U-haul to start doing criminal background checks? When someone mowed down a crowd of people in their car, did they start asking for police checkpoints every couple miles? Or a larger police presence? nope. Wonder why? Probably didn’t want their “law abiding privacy” invaded, right? Well, that’s how gun owners who don’t use their gun to commit crimes feel. Back the fuck off with your gun control bullshit. You can only push so far before you get pushed back. Quite astonishing these people think they can push such a crowd and actually win.

    1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      ”””””””””””””””””””””””I don’t care if there were 1,000 mass shootings this year. The answer is NOT to punish law abiding citizens. The answer is NOT attempting to remove guns from those who follow “the law”.===================

      That is precisely the problem , people like you do not care how many innocent people are gunned down each year and that the Gun Show loophole lets private sales sell guns to anyone who wants a gun even if he just walked out of prison or the nut house.

      Yes indeed Universal Background Checks along with safe storage laws would put a big dent in people getting guns who should not have them. History has proven this in many Industrialized Countries that adopted this type of law decades ago.

      Even the watered down Brady Bill that only vets new gun purchases has proved that it prevented thousands of people a year from buying a new gun and would do the same if it covered Second Hand Sales. This is not rocket science but the Far Out Right Wing Nut Cases always say since no law is perfect lets not have any laws. Funny but you could say the same thing about laws against murder and rape too. Now you can understand how flawed the thinking on the Far Right has always been.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Ok Vlad… if the Brady Bill is so effective, why is nobody ever prosecuted for lying on their 4473? Could it be that “background checks” are security theater and that evil people will still find a way to get guns?

        Look at Australia. Two mass shootings just this year with a population less than 10% of the US.

        1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          Beat me to it.

          How many of those thousands of blocked gun sales resulted in prosecution?

        2. avatar As Astra says:

          Much like how I’m sure that vlad thinks that no matter how many people that the antifa thugs beat near to death they still should be allowed to assemble in public.

        3. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          to pwrsrge””””””””””””

          quote”””””””””””””””””Ok Vlad… if the Brady Bill is so effective, why is nobody ever prosecuted for lying on their 4473? Could it be that “background checks” are security theater and that evil people will still find a way to get guns?

          Look at Australia. Two mass shootings just this year with a population less than 10% of the US.”””””””””””””””

          You never can see the forest for the trees. The fact is they did not get a new gun. Now what part of this do you not understand. And lets face facts there are people who committed minor crimes decades ago that are so dumb they do not even realize they are not eligible to own a gun so do we overflow the prisons with these people. Not that I don’t agree that violent former felons and nut cases should not be prosecuted but lets face facts the Republicans are in power and they are the ones now that are not prosecuting these people.

          Sorry try again.

          And as far as Australia they have not yet had a mass killing in the numbers that they had before they outlawed high capacity firearms and the Stats show that gun crime and homicides in general went down over 40 some per cent after the law was passed and guns destroyed because now there is so few of them compared to how many were once in circulation.

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          Fun fact Vlad, the US violent crime and homicide rates have also gone down by over 50% during the same period. No gun control required.

        5. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          ”quote””””””””””””””’Fun fact Vlad, the US violent crime and homicide rates have also gone down by over 50% during the same period. No gun control required.””””””””””””’quote

          Not fun fact so I am not quoting your dribble but serious fact. Mass killings and Right Wing terrorist groups and their suicide soldiers have skyrocketed since Trump started his racist political rantings to get elected by his hard core storm trooper base. The weapon of choice, is the mass killing machine called the Assault Rifle. After all that is what they were designed to do and if the Founding Fathers could come back from the grave they would outlaw them faster than a cat can scratch his ass as they never envisioned such killing machines of mass destruction. Next you will be telling us your 2A rights have been raped because you cannot legally own an atomic bomb. The Founding Fathers would not have been fond of civilian ownership of these either.

        6. avatar pwrserge says:

          Son, if the founding fathers came back from the grave you’d be doing a wind chime impression from the nearest lamp post right alongside half the DNC.

      2. avatar As Astra says:

        Dear vlad the splinter provider a firearm to a convicted even between private individuals is already illegal under federal law. Do you think of wish hard enough an ATF agent is going to magically appear every time a gun changes hands? Wait you probably do.

        1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          to astra

          quote—————————–Dear vlad the splinter provider a firearm to a convicted even between private individuals is already illegal under federal law. Do you think of wish hard enough an ATF agent is going to magically appear every time a gun changes hands? Wait you probably do——————–quote

          You either live in a fantasy world or your lying or you have no idea how the gun market actually works. Private sellers often have no idea who they are selling their guns to and because of blind greed often could not care less. If draconian penalties were put into law you would see how fast ordinary citizens would obey such a law because they would know their lives would be ruined if they deliberately broke such laws. Face facts the number of second hand guns going into criminal hands would be cut down in fantastic numbers almost overnight. No law is perfect or works 100 per cent of the time but we do not abolish laws against theft, rape and murder because they do not work all of the time. I think now you can see how foolish your post was.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Because of “blind greed” or because of the Second Amendment, I do not care who I sell a gun to, if the purchaser is a prohibited person he should be prosecuted and imprisoned. How is that a problem for you? Why must something already illegal be made more illegaller rather than just enforcing the current law? Answer – – because that is not the goal. The goal is confiscation followed by dictatorship. Civil war will occur first.

          And how would anyone even know if you broke such a law? I sold a gun in 1964. Think you can prosecute me for that? How would you know whether I sold that gun in 1964 or 2014? The very concept is moronic.

      3. avatar B.D. says:

        Far right… compared to what? Idiots like you on the far left? Anyone far on either side can shove their far opinions up their ass. All you do is talk shit. You take one line out of context and create a scenario that does not happen. You need to watch some courtroom stuff, where idiot attorneys try to get the defense to wave their rights by taking one line out of context. If you knew anything, you would realize that the “whole truth” refers to the entire statement. Not just the one line you don’t like. So again, I say: I don’t care how many shootings happen, because the point of the ENTIRE post I made was that criminals don’t follow laws and all your gun control mumbo jumbo has already failed and only continues to infringe on the right of individual self defense in a nation where the government can drone strike an entire city just to pass a vote.

        Get fucked – as usual.

        1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          to V.D. I mean B.D.

          quote———————You take one line out of context and create a scenario that does not happen.———————-quote

          Rant all you want but as I stated second hand gun sales go right into the hands of criminals because there is no vetting of the sale. Now what part of this do you not understand. Every civilized nation on earth has such a law and if you had brain one you would already know why. Its not rocket science.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yes Vlad. I’m sure that Tyrone the crack dealer is going to run down to the gun store to see if Jamal the crackhead can pass a background check before he sells him a stolen gat.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Hey Vlad! Prove it!

      4. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Yo, Vlad. Story is we are all going to support UBC which does not involve a registry. I will not comply with UBC regardless, ever. Without a registry, why don’t you explain how you are going to FORCE me to comply? IOW, one way or another this is bullshit. Such a law can never be remotely enforceable, why would anybody bother? It is STUPID!! I also will not surrender the “assault weapons” which nobody knows I own, how are you planning to make me? You are trolling about positions which are idiotic.

  8. avatar Cadeyrn says:

    Trump is a former New York Democrat. He’s extremely squishy on 2A issues.

    Fortunately, his administration has been jamming through judicial appointees at a furious rate. The courts are going to be more inclined to actually read the Constitution than before. This means they are more likely to support the RKBA.

    But if he caves on this issue, he’s doomed and we all have to go through a lot of judicial wrangling before it is all done. And there will be price spikes and shortages like when Obama crashed into the scene. Worse, actually. Because if the Democrats take Congress and the Presidency, they absolutely WILL enact Australian-style “turn them in or be prosecuted” laws. We will all become felons overnight. You won’t be allowed to have a bolt-action rifle or a “Sleepy Joe” self-defense shotgun. Nothing.

    And China, Russia and North Korea will laugh their butts off right before they attack a severely weakened US. But the damage will have been done.

    1. avatar LeaderOfTheBanned™ says:

      Sounds like you already turned in your balls.

      1. avatar Geoff WWJWD - "What would John Wick do?" PR says:

        Ovaries, don’t you mean? 😉

  9. avatar strych9 says:

    Since a big part of this is about numbers…

    One of the things we should be wary about in the context of media hype is the thing I’ve kinda been pounding on here about how the Christchurch shooter was trying to, for lack of a better term, “spawn a movement”.

    Keep in mind that I’m not saying this is going to happen. I’m merely pointing out how little these guys need to “get it right” to cause some serious damage and cause POTG a massive headache.

    The stats on this are bothersome especially in light of how the media/gun controllers act. When you start talking large numbers you don’t need high success rates to cause a real problem. That’s the point here.

    Consider the following constraints on a mathematical set of assumptions and then consider the potential fallout.

    His message appeals in some regard to 1% of the country: 325,000,000 x0.01 = 3,250,000

    1% of those people take that message kinda seriously: 3,250,000 x0.01 = 32,500

    1% of those people actually go do something astronomically retarded: 52,500 x 0.01 = 325.

    Assume that’s split over a three year period: 325/3 = 108.3 round down, 108.

    So these guys, trying to take advantage of an already obviously real feeling that exists in the Western world don’t have to be very successful to cause complete havoc. If they manage to get 1% of 1% of 1% spread over a three year period that’s an actual 108 shootings a year.

    If we average the number of deaths for the top 25 deadliest shootings since 1949 (which range from 10 to 58) we get 17.76. Round that down because reasons, 17 x108 = 1836.

    Now assume that I’m overestimating by 50%. 54 shootings a year killing 918 people. Cut that number in half again. 27 mass shootings per year with an annual death toll of for three years 419.

    If that were to come to pass, ya think the media and the antis would run with it? Think they’d blow it out of proportion? Even if you cut those final numbers in half again, what do you think the political result is? I mean common here people, this website is full of commenters who note, and not incorrectly, how “soft” Americans have gotten. You think the soccer moms won’t notice a dozen acts of political terrorism a year that kill 200 people when the media already lies to the extent that they do?

    Just consider the absolute shitstorm that starts tomorrow thanks to TWO shootings this weekend and start thinking about what happens if 1% of 1% of 1% happens.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      * that 52,500 x 0.01 should be “32,500 x 0.01” I fat fingered the fuck out of that. My bad.

    2. avatar Miner49er says:

      It is already happening:

      “Lubbock, Texas man, identified as William Patrick Williams, 19, was arrested by special agents of the FBI and ATF, the US Attorney’s Office of the Northern District of Texas announced Friday.
      Williams was allegedly contemplating a mass shooting and bought ammunition. He rented a hotel room where he was plotting to kill people before his grandmother persuaded him to visit a hospital after learning of his plan, the release said.
      According to the release, Williams told his grandmother on July 13 he had recently purchased an AK-47 rifle, was planning to “shoot up” a hotel and “then commit suicide by cop.”

  10. avatar Brewski says:

    Fact:

    Calling everything a “mass shooting” tends to lead to the perception of an increase of mass shootings.

  11. avatar former water walker says:

    Well…there were TWO mass shooting’s in Chiraq SO FAR this weekend. 9 and 8 people were reportedly shot. 1 death. Lots of punks spraying and not praying. As far as drumph if be signs gun control he’ll lose my vote. And any swing state gun owners. I’m too old to turn in my AR15!

  12. avatar Stateisevil says:

    Big gun control announcement at 10am tomorrow with God Emperor Cheetoh. What will he ban next?

    1. avatar Hank says:

      Where’d you hear that at?

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-declares-hate-has-no-place-in-our-country-as-dems-demand-recall-of-congress

        He says he’ll have another statement out Monday (tomorrow). Also note that some Dems are already calling for Congress to conviene a special session for “gun violence”.

        Further:

        https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/08/04/donald-trump-promises-action-after-weekend-shootings-ohio-texas/

  13. avatar AlanInFL says:

    Here in Florida, we make fun of Nikki pics on the gas pumps. We just know she sucks at the pumps

  14. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    quote=================One is a bump stock ban, the utility of which is dubious even without the ATF’s illegal reclassification of the devices, seems especially strange.=====================

    “Of dubious utility”! My God has this Author lost his fking mind!!!!!!!! Sixty some people were slaughtered with a bump stock and I wonder who is the bigger nut case the shooter or the Author of this nut case article he wrote.

    Also his illusions that one State does not render another States gun laws useless is again right out of fantasy land. Without uniform Federal Laws all the myriad of conflicting or non-existent State Laws make most gun laws nothing more than a joke unless they are on the Federal Level. Even a mentally challenged person could understand that basic concept. Christ this is not rocket science. And it once again shows the utter failure of Federalism.

    Quote——————————–The reality is that, if we are going to operate in a system of interconnected jurisdictions and governmental powers, borders have to mean something. If both North and South Carolina have lawmaking authority, the fact that one bans something that the other doesn’t is not a flaw of the federalist system.——————-quote

    Wrong again it shows not only what a failure Federalism is it also shows how one group of Americans living in one State have less rights or more rights than people living in another State. In other words the Constitution be damned to uphold Federalism.

    1. avatar As Astra says:

      Hey weed is illegal in some states we must overturn the laws in all the states that have legalized it!! OMG some states have dry laws we must impose those restrictions across the entire nation!!! GASP!!!!!!!! there are states with unrestricted abortions send in federal troops to bring them into line with other states with limits!!
      Your not much on actually thinking things through are you? (Massively rhetorical question)

      1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        to astra

        ””””””””””””””””’Your not much on actually thinking things through are you? (Massively rhetorical question)””””””””””””

        On the contrary unlike you I believe in equal rights for all not one States right to screw people out of their constitutional rights while another lets them have the same. Now is this getting to complicate for you??????

        Now lets talk something you will understand. Federalism is so asinine that in one jurisdiction one could own a vetted silencer if you lived on one side of the street and when you crossed the street you were in another jurisdiction that outlawed them. Either they should be legal for all or not legal for all its only fair to all American citizens rights. Now what part of this do you not understand??????????????????

        1. avatar Ing says:

          Okay, so legal for all, then. See how easy that was?

        2. avatar As Astra says:

          Obviously my counter argument was too complicated for you so very you seemed to skip over it. I will try to explain it to you. You seem big on imposing uniform laws on others as long they happen to be ones you agree with, however you seem not to grasp that the reverse is also possible laws you do not want could be imposed one you. I hope that helps. By the way piling extra punctuation into the end of sentences doesn’t make them anymore meaningful, of course it may just be that your keyboard is sticky from other online activities.

    2. avatar Someone says:

      Bump stock was used once to commit crime. Out of hundreds of thousands of sold units, exactly one person used them to murder. The 99.99999% of them have been used to create noise and grins on the range. Do we ban anything that’s been misused once to kill?

      Eighty some people were slaughtered in Paris by a truck. Thirty people were baked alive in Japan. Let us know when the oh so civilized and completely disarmed France and Japan bans large vehicles and gasoline.

  15. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    Ahhh thank the Author for pointing out that instead of 251 mass killings there were only 250 1/2 killings which means the body count is not yet high enough to do anything about the mass carnage and slaughter.

    Sorry try again. Sane people believe human life is sacred even it it means only saving one life especially if it happens to be your own when some nut case with an assault rifle wants to kill you and your whole family then the fact that there were only 250 1/2 mass shootings instead of 251 shows the insanity of such arguments. But really when was the Far Right ever sane????

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Ok… so “if it saves one life” is your standard? Well, given the track record of socialists like you, I think we need to start chucking you commies out of helicopters. After all, if I kill 10,000 commies, but save 10,001 people from being killed by commies, that makes it ok? Right?

      1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        ”””””””””””””’Ok… so “if it saves one life” is your standard? Well, given the track record of socialists like you, I think we need to start chucking you commies out of helicopters. After all, if I kill 10,000 commies, but save 10,001 people from being killed by commies, that makes it ok? Righ”””””””””””””’

        I sincerely hope the police are reading your posts. They are chilling. We do not need another mass killing this week.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Don’t worry, unlike every shooter that has gone off the rails recently, I am no brand of socialist. Might want to keep an eye on your Berniebros though…

          But far be it for a commie troll to understand rhetorical arguments.

        2. avatar B.D. says:

          How old are you?

          The police? Really? LOL. Are you that neighbor who calls the cops because someone was weedwacking and their weedwacker hit your fence?

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Vlad: “Fuck the police!”

          [Sees somebody mocking his socialism on teh intertoobes]

          Vlad: “I need the Police!”

        4. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          to V.D. I mean B.D.

          quote——————How old are you?

          The police? Really? LOL. Are you that neighbor who calls the cops because someone was weedwacking and their weedwacker hit your fence?”””””””””””””””’quote

          No I call the police when someone is hinting he would like to mass murder people. Sane people would understand this. What part of this do you not understand?????????????

        5. avatar huntmaster says:

          When they start chucking the commies out of the helicopters most of the police are going to be waiting on the ground to make sure the’re dead. And then they’ll strip their teeth and make sure they got the watch.

        6. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          I could really go for a protein shake right now. Maybe I’ll hit backpage.com and see who is free for a blow n’ go.

        7. avatar Anymouse says:

          No I call the police when someone is hinting he would like to mass murder people. Sane people would understand this.
          — ———————
          Says the moron who has chosen a racist mass murderer as his nom de plume (that means “pen name,” Vlad). From his manifesto, I thought the Ohio shooter was Vlad, but since he’s posting here, it must have been a different nutty leftist.

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      But hey, let’s take it a step further… After all, no breach of human rights is out of the question “if it saves one life”…

      What do all these shooters have in common? They are single men in their 20s. Men that should really be getting married and starting families at that point in their lives. Sorry ladies, you’re going to have to take one for the team. We’re going to nationalize the means of reproduction and marry you off to these guys. Divorce will, naturally, be outlawed. I know it sucks to go back to 19th century marriage customs, but “if it saves on life”… right?

      1. avatar As Astra says:

        Yes great idea to satisfy one leftard are demand they get their handmaiden’s tale delusion come true. Ironically hilarious! 😂

    3. avatar As Astra says:

      The 251 number’s source itself states of includes incidents with no fatalities. Try to actually read a post first.

    4. avatar B.D. says:

      Another article says 292!

      whatever… What happens when you remove “gun” from the “violence research”? Should we put an end to domestic violence too? No matter how, or what was used? Because that number is about 20 people per minute according to multiple sites. So shouldn’t we just end violence?

      Yea… see where that gets you? Nowhere.

    5. avatar B.D. says:

      Hey, the number for domestic violence is in the millions already this year. Maybe we should just try to end violence all together? Because all these things criminals are doing is illegal, so we should just make them more illegaler.

  16. avatar Political gristle says:

    I’m expecting Trump to package and sale us,
    Universal background checks, broad definition Red flag laws, silencer ban, firearm registration/licensing, magazine capacity limits, and maybe “”Assault weapons””ban and ammo restrictions.
    We’ll see tomorrow…………
    I see an anti 2nd “A” $hit storm coming regardless……..

    1. avatar jwm says:

      In other words, CA at the federal level. I already live under all those restrictions here in CA.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        [X] Doubt

  17. avatar MouseGun says:

    This is on par with all those articles claiming that hate crimes are on the rise, but it turns out it was some liberal loon that sorry painted something that is supposed to look like a swastika on a door or wall or something, gets caught lying, then gives some shitty excuse of “wanting to start a conversation”.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Or just hires 2 Nigerian prices to hang a bit of clothes line around his neck and squirt a little bleach on him.

  18. avatar Nanashi says:

    “the lone Democrat in the state cabinet,”

    Reminder this is because Rick Scott did nothing about voter fraud in 2016, even though he was made aware of it. The same official in broward county that enabled fraud in 2016 enabled it in 2018. The margin the Republican (a “repealing the” strong NFA 2A supporter) was less than the blatantly fraudulent votes from that one county alone.

    This is why I voted for Nelson. At least he’d be gone sooner than Scott.

  19. avatar Geoff says:

    The Leftwing Mother Jones website keeps track of mass shooting using the FBI definition of 4 or more killed, but also is a little more lenient in counting 3 or more killed in one incident.
    https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/
    It has been updated with the 2 most recent incidents. 115 mass shootings in 37 years.

  20. avatar G.A. Pennypacker says:

    a mass shooting is 4 or more people being shot. it’s happened 251 times so far this year. fact.

    numbers aren’t opinions. they’re facts that you can’t run from. stop burying your head in the sand. idiots.

    1. avatar Someone says:

      Says the guy who can’t find the shift key on his keyboard.

      No, they count any injury, not necessarily shot wounds, that happened while a gun discharged.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Bullshit. You know so much, what were their names? You have no clue, because you are regurgitating whatever your handlers told you, you have zero actual knowledge.

      I’m pretty certain those numbers also include episodes where harsh words were exchanged.

  21. Shepard Smith on Fox News quoted a stat that the Dayton Ohio shooting is the 251st “mass shooting” this year.
    Google “251 mass shootings” and you will find this number comes from the site Gun Violence Archive. They classify a mass shooting as one event where 4 or more people are injured by gunfire.
    For Shepard Smith, and many others to attach this number to the recent mass murders by lone gunmen is counter productive and only intended to scare public opinion into favoring anti gun legislation such as an assault weapon ban or red flag laws. Neither law would affect the majority of the mass shootings in this country. My source? Gun Violence Archive.
    GVA has a chart of all “mass shootings”. You can sort the events by State or City. The majority of “mass shootings occurred in the State of California and the city of Chicago.
    Red flag laws, assault weapons ban or any gun control will have no affect on gang violence which is the major factor contributing to this large number.
    What happened in El Paso and Dayton is horrible. So horrible that I don’t understand why Fox News wants to make it seem worse by throwing out this high number of 251 unless there is an agenda.
    That agenda is publicized. Republican Lindsey Graham wants to financially support States that implement Red Flag Laws in the wake of the El Paso murders. Others have called for another AWB even though the last one had no affect on violent crime.
    Gun control won’t solve the murder problem and even if it would, why the need to imply that there have been 251 events similar to the mass murder in El Paso? One reason. Manipulate public opinion to pass laws that infringe on our rights. Have your own opinion but base that opinion on the facts. The fact is, events like El Paso account for around a dozen of those in the 251 figure. One event is horrible and an attempt to prevent future mass killings is a noble and rational response. But I take pause in supporting any action that is based on a diseginuous attempt to overstate the numbers.

  22. And WELL “gun control in Florida” SHOULD BE “out of local hands: think not? Then let’s put gay marriage and abortion rights and every other hot issue into local and not state or federal hands. The big diff, of course, is that the 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution, and, per that document in its last article, anything not therein DOES belong to the states, but guns are provided for in the 2nd. As for the WASR, semantics aside, ANY AK-47-looking piece today, if produced in Eastern Europe, including the new ones produced in Pompano Beach, FL, by a Russian company, IS at least an AK variant, a term which can honestly be applied to things NOT exactly the same. So, “variant” or “cousin” or “derivative” is STILL accurate, whichever one wishes to use. A “derivative” technically comes FROM something else, but in concept or design, something NOT directly evolving in material from another can STILL be a derivative of that other. So long as the media and anti-gun politicians continue to lie and distort and make up their own definitions, this “national conversation” will go nowhere. My father’s five-shot, magazine-less, bolt-action rifle in the late ’30s was later used to “assault” a lot of enemy in the Big One, as was my uncle’s 8-shot M1 Garand, used to kill a lot of enemy infantry in the Pacific war. BOTH were well within the ten-round limit proposed by many today, and BOTH were “weapons of war.” Yet the anti-“assault-rifle” voices would permit either to be bought and sold, in spite of the fact that Charles Whitman used the latter to kill 13 in the infamous U. Texas at Austin bell tower massacre in August 1966. A nasty bastard can stuff three Western-style six-shooters, single action, into his waistband and kill 18 – one more round than a Glock 17 holds in its 17-round magazine. Yet the Glock is considered “high-capacity” but the six-shooter not. No problem for the diabolical mind: “high capacity” is, for all intents and purposes, however many mags one can carry and dispense in however short a time; Nicholas Cruz had 15 TEN-round mags at Marjory Stoneman, yet many want to ban rifles that take more than ten rounds in a mag. Intellectual honesty demands that his rifle be left out of the argument, as his mags; they were ALL within the guidelines proposed by anti-assault rifle voices. Why the hell are we not hearing ANYthing about metal detectors – y’know: those things we are glad to have at airports that DETECT GUNS? For those who stupidly consider them not practical at schools, tell me why your life is more important when flying than it is going to class.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email