Statistics Don’t Show an Increase in Mass Shootings But the Narrative Marches On

It’s almost as if the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex and the media — but I repeat myself — has a vested interest in selling the narrative that mass shootings happen all the time.

The horrific mass killings in El Paso and Dayton have understandably inspired terror in America and calls for expanded gun control, predictive policing, and mental health interventions designed to reduce violence.

But Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox, the leading researcher on the topic for the past 35 years, tells Reason, “There is no evidence that we are in the midst of an epidemic of mass shootings.” The number of incidents and casualties are simply too small to make such claims and, he stresses, the media coverage of shootings often ends up creating a false sense that gun violence—which is at or near historic lows—is ubiquitous and growing.

– Nick Gillespie in James Alan Fox: There Is No Evidence of an ‘Epidemic of Mass Shootings’

comments

  1. avatar Casey says:

    Cue that one TTAG commenter selling us how libertarians are all evil and whatnot.

    1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

      Shhhh. You’ll encourage Vlad/Pg2 to spew their nonsense as well.

      Or whoever at TTAG is behind Vlad/Pg2. I’m beginning to think Knute(ken) was right.

      1. avatar Pg2 says:

        Geoff/guesty/knute…..yes, you use all 3 profiles, and likely others here, what’s your preoccupation with my posts? It’s somewhat freakish how often reference you me, and I only read this blog occasionally. Get a job, unless this IS your job, which Is beginning to look more likely.

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “Geoff/guesty/knute…..yes, you use all 3 profiles…”

          You seriously must be that stupid to believe I am Guesty or any other regular commentator on TTAG.

          I hope I won’t need to interact with you at all about your paranoia complex, since I directed you to the post by Dan Z. a day or so back who *specifically* called your ass out on you spamming your anti-vaxx shit here on TTAG.

          Or are you going feign ignorance again and claim that you didn’t see where Dan clearly stated anti-vaxx crap wasn’t going to be tolerated on TTAG any more?

          Just to reiterate, here is the post again dedicated to *YOU* specifically :

          https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/a-few-words-on-ttags-comment-policy/

          If you have any questions whatsoever about that post, contact TTAG management and Dan can explain it to you, in small words and simple sentences that even *you* should be capable of understanding…. 🙂

        2. avatar Pg2 says:

          You’re a a loser. Multi profile using trolls like yourself post here pushing leftist agendas hiding behind a fake support for the 2A. Ridiculously transparent.

        3. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          You mad, bro? 😉

          Hey, Guesty, since he’s so convinced you and I are the same, how about *really* yanking his chain?

  2. avatar No one of consequence says:

    I hope Prof Fox has an alternate employer lined up. He’s about to be SJWd…

  3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Never let the truth get in the way of your propaganda.

  4. avatar Jim Wildrick Jr says:

    Camel face is a typical gun grabber.Never let a tragedy go to waste.She is another clown riding the clown car agenda.Responsible gun owners have to fight every day for our civil rights.

    1. avatar James Johnson says:

      Name calling is so juvenile. And take a good look around. Beautiful mixed race faces are going to be the norm in the near future. Get over it. It’s America! Not amerikkka. We are a mixed race culture. If you can’t handle that than leave.

      1. avatar Karl says:

        The man never said anything about race, but yes, name calling based on nonissues is counterproductive. So is trying to find racists everywhere.

      2. avatar pwrserge says:

        Wow… ok… guess who the racist is in this conversation?

        1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

          Is there enough self awareness to notice through the virtue signaling?

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          Yep, calling a black woman a camel is not racist, nope. No racism, comparing people to animals, nope, no racist here.

          Fascinating.

        3. avatar racenutz says:

          She’s black????

          Damn I thought she was arab. I’m not voting for her policies at any rate. I don’t care what race she is.

          From a humor standpoint the camel reference doesn’t make sense for a black woman but does for arab.

      3. avatar John in AK says:

        I saw that episode of ‘South Park’–Season 8, Episode 7, ‘Goobacks.’ In America’s future, everyone is the same uniform tan, all speak the same polyglot language, and all are miserably poor.

        That’s just great.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Yes, it does seem reasonable be to be concerned about a dystopian future portrayed in a TV cartoon.

          But I guess drama is where one can find it, when one needs some in an otherwise meaningless life.

  5. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    I dont know being to lazy to look it up. But what if a few people made phoney complants about someone or her in their household. Legally no matter who it is. Wont the judge have to issue a warrant and the coppers have to respond.

    1. avatar DaveL says:

      Of course not. One of the important functions of a judge is to make sure the Important People don’t get hassled about those pesky laws they foist on the unwashed masses.

      1. avatar Chuckers says:

        It didn’t work with the FISA courts did it?

  6. avatar Shire-man says:

    Sounds like more science privilege. Neil Degrasse Tyson learned the hard way you can’t fight emotion with facts. On the bright side all of these Galileos getting burned for their heresy against liberalism should be eye-opening for anyone with half a brain.

  7. avatar Rusty - always carry - Chains says:

    Kneepad Harris, tyrant in waiting, is just continuing in the Neocommunist Party tradition of anticonstitutionalist rhetoric. Tyrants gotta do what tyrants gotta do. It’s up to us to stop it.

    1. avatar James Johnson says:

      I hope you mean by “we’ve got to stop it!” You were referring to mass shootings. If you meant anything other than that you’ve ceased having a heart. You must support the all too often occurrence of mass shooting of your fellow Americans. Damn right you better do something about it. Vote democrat. Doing something is better than doing nothing at all. Unless you are lazy and dumb. The first step in resolving a problem is realizing that there is a problem. So go ahead with all your denials. It makes you look like a jack ass to your children’s children who will ask YOU what you did about this epidemic of mass shootings in this quickly devolving country.

      1. avatar Karl says:

        Oh… that’s why you see racism everywhere… nevermind you can’t be swayed by reason and logic.

      2. avatar pwrserge says:

        Yeah… More people die from the Flu in an average day than die to mass shootings in an average year. All your left wing propaganda doesn’t change basic math. Oh, and the leadership of the Demokkkommie party needs to be shipped to GITMO for some “enhanced interrogation” until they spill the names of their terrorist backers.

        1. avatar Ariana Kelley says:

          More people die to the flu than mass shootings, and yet people still get flu shots and try to prevent the proliferation of the flu with smart, reasonable behavior changes. Or do you say “people will find a WAY to spread the flu so why even try”…?? Wait are you an ANTI vaxxer

        2. avatar Pg2 says:

          Still clinging to the CDC fictional flu numbers? How many fatalities are confirmed flu cases? If you don’t get reimbursed to post AstroTurf pharma bullshit here, you really should be.

        3. avatar John in AK says:

          For once, Pg2, you are absolutely correct: NOBODY actually dies from ‘The Flu.’

          They die from pneumonia, pulmonary edema, sepsis, acute hypovolemia, circulatory collapse followed by distributive shock, and/or cardiac arrest stemming from all of the above, plus hypoxia or malignant hyperthermia.

          So, no, it’s not ‘The Flu’ that kills; It just those niggling little things that ‘The Flu’ initiates in the vulnerable.

          It’s the same thing with guns: Guns don’t kill people, and people don’t kill people; It’s those insignificant little bullets that do the deed.

        4. avatar pg2 says:

          John, cite the flu numbers that are associated with the complications you listed. Total bullshit. You’ve assumed the flu caused the complications. There is no hard data to support that.

        5. avatar John in AK says:

          Oh. . . my. . . God. You’ve got it BAD, Dude.

          BlackHelicopterTwinTowersJFKMarilynMonroeJadeHelmFakedMoonWalkAlienCorpsesArea51 bad.

          I do hope that you prosper in the alternate reality that you inhabit. You surely don’t belong in this one.

        6. avatar pg2 says:

          Nice deflection from your bullshit post John. Noticed you didn’t even attempt to support your BS statement, you went right into key smashing trolling.

        7. avatar Shallnot BeInfringed says:

          Why, oh why do you guys keep feeding this troll? Haven’t you figured out by now that PG1.99 simply loves to rile you up in any way possible? I swear, he gets off on spinning up those who are susceptible to his machinations… remember, trolls live for that rush!

          From this point forward, I refuse to address him (her, it?) directly – I will only ridicule its presence/posts and ignore any dialog directed at me, because… TROLL.

          Oh, and I will also report any and all of it’s off-topic bullshit that I see on this site. Enough is enough.

        8. avatar Shallnot BeInfringed says:

          Also, before I’m accused of being the sockpuppet of any other poster on this site, I hereby flatly state that I have never posted on this site as anyone but Shallnot BeInfringed. I am the original, the one and only, despite the paranoid delusions of anyone (or any troll) here.

        9. avatar pg2 says:

          @shallnottellthetruth…..no, I come here for the comedy and to occasionally rebut posts that are blatant misinformation.

      3. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

        Cool story bro, still voting to keep my liberty and will pass down whatever guns I have to grandkids.

        1. avatar Jimbo says:

          Way to firmly stick your head in the sand and pass the problem to your children. You have no business being a parent so don’t have kids. If you already have them let someone with a brain raise them.

        2. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

          Someone with values you approve of I am sure. No I think my family will stick with liberty and likely homeschool given the garbage fire of public education here in NY. Good job earning that couple of cents for a generic post though.

        3. avatar Chuckers says:

          Actually, the second amendment was put in the constitution to protect us from a tyrantical govornment. Wonder how many democrats have a copy of Saul Lowensky’s book setting around on a coffee table. Dedicated to Lucifer (Satan) the first great radical. Rule number 1, control the press. Rule number 2, divide.

          I noticed a lot of democrats saying the shooting in Furgesson was murder. How come Obama didn’t charge the policeman? Could be after Eric (henchman) Holder and the FBI (in his pocket) interviewed 50, 60, who knows how many people, they knew they could never get a conviction. You try to take a policemans gun away from him you might get shot. I know Obama spent millions of tax payers dollars trying to prove cops shot black people more than white people, Yale Study, but what it proved was more blacks got pulled over but a higher percentage of white men getting pulled over got shot by the police. Not suprised, shoot a black man fill out a weeks worth of paper work, shoot a white man, oh well. Elizabeth Warren and Kamil Harris can just bite me the lying ass holes.

      4. avatar Johnson James says:

        Except it is NOT an epidemic … did you even read the post before commenting?

        The media has a vested interest in sensationalizing shootings or, well, anything at all just to get the attention.

        The Democratic Leftists are in the same boat except that their motivation is agenda and attention.

      5. avatar LastOfTheOldOnes says:

        That’s pretty clever naming a Russian bot James Johnson, such a great American name….

        I don’t even detect an accent. Well played, James !
        By the way, James, I wonder if you’ve ever heard this phrase: “….. the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

        All these anti Bill Of Rights extremists are starting to crawl out of the woodwork…

        In case you didn’t notice, all of the mass shootings occur lawlessly in gun-free zones, and/or in large liberal cities. Very few in conservative rural areas.

      6. avatar Someone says:

        Did you read the article? The criminologist who investigated the mass shootings for 35 years said there is no “gun violence epidemic” to be found. Mass media and gun grabbing politician’s hysteria notwithstanding. It’s a lie.

        “Doing something is better than doing nothing at all.” That’s where your problem lies! Doing something based on false data, wrong understanding of the situation or on false predictions will most likely make things worse than doing nothing.
        Road to hell is paved with good intentions.

        Disarming good people to prevent bad people from harming good people doesn’t make much sense to me.

    2. avatar CLarson says:

      It’s funny that you say tyrant because Tulsi Gabbard eviscerated Kamala in one of the recent Dem debates for overzealous law enforcement. Kamala seems to be fading in the polls because minorities perceive her as the “Cop” candidate. 😁

      1. avatar Southern Cross says:

        You mean KH would sell out her constituents in a heartbeat if it was politically expedient?

        Yes! And?

  8. avatar Matt says:

    I’ve also increasingly seen people starting to use 3 shot instead of 4 as the bar for mass shooting.

  9. avatar DerryM says:

    I think you have to take into account the much larger population of today. The number of incidents of “mass shootings” is very small relative to the entire population, but, of course, greatly magnified by the so-called News Services using these reports to advance their anti-gun agenda for the Left.

    As the population grows, so, too, does the number of damaged individuals within the population who commit these horrific attacks, but the relative statistical percentage remains the same. The quoted criminologist points out that statistically the number of gun violence incidents is at or near a historic low.

    Once again, Leftist Propaganda creates an “epidemic” where none exists. If Americans could freely carry (bear) their firearms wherever they wished, the number of these “mass shootings” would decrease significantly. Some by deterrence effect. Some by quicker response time by armed Citizens. However, attackers with a “death wish” would likely still act out.

    Basically, these days if a Leftist politico, or MSM source, says something is a “crisis” look to the simplest, most obvious explanation for the root of the lie and keep in mind you are being lied to about most everything.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      “If Americans could freely carry (bear) their firearms wherever they wished, the number of these “mass shootings” would decrease significantly.”

      ^^ THIS ^^

      ^^ DOUBLE THIS ^^

      ^^ YELLING THIS FROM THE ROOFTOPS ^^

    2. avatar Jimbo says:

      This is a stupid comment. All research ever done has shown that more guns in the hands of the populist = more violence. Do some fucking due diligence before you spout absolute bullshit out of your mouth.

      1. avatar Joel says:

        “All the research ever done” citations please?

        I know there are no credible citations for your comment btw. Just pointing it out for fun.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          You should know by now that vlad never gives citations. Just lies.

        2. avatar Pg2 says:

          Troll bots don’t use citations. But even if they did, would it matter? Do citations, regardless of merit, grant unconditional credibility?

      2. avatar Someone says:

        “All research ever done has shown that more guns in the hands of the populist = more violence.” So, what now – should we disarm populists?

        Who says that all violence is bad? I would call for stopping mass murderer by any means, including violent ones by gun use (which is what cops do – eventually).

        Btw it’s a lie, like all leftist’s talking points. American populACE owns more firearms today than at any point in history. The crime rates are lowest in decades and have been steadily declining since their peak in ’80s while gun ownership steadily climbed.
        You can do a due diligence and read some real FBI statistics instead of Bloomberg propaganda. More guns doesn’t necessarily mean less crime, but it definitely does not mean more crime.

    3. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “This is a stupid comment. All research ever done has shown that more guns in the hands of the populist = more violence.”

      Jimbo, that’s a bald-faced lie and I can *prove* it to you.

      Literally, millions of new guns are sold in America yearly. The gun companies are doing very well selling that many new guns yearly.

      Do you disagree with that statement, or is it the truth?

      You know that it’s the truth.

      All those millions of new guns sold every year add up to some *big* numbers over the years. Many tens of millions of new guns have been sold over the last 20 years.

      You’re not (that) stupid, you know it’s the truth. Gun companies are making some big money today.

      Now, a funny thing about 20 years ago is, the total number of people back then killed by guns then was roughly *double* what it is today. That’s right, about *twice* as many dead back then compared to now.

      Here’s the source of that data, Pew research –

      https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/03/5-facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/

      Gun deaths down about 50 percent, with tens of millions of new guns on the street.

      More guns, and a lot less crime.

      Jimbo, your Progressive buddies are *LYING* to you about ‘gun violence’. There is no ‘epidemic’. It was twice as bad 20-odd years back.

      Doesn’t that enrage you that they are lying to you? And if they are lying to you about guns, what else are they lying to you about?

      What do have to say about that? I look forward to your reply…

  10. avatar MarkPA says:

    We PotG are pretty good at “doing it by the numbers”. We can look at statistics and make fairly accurate judgements about what they might mean (or NOT mean) as respects policy implications.

    Nevertheless, our attention is still influenced by our own goals. And, this distorts our thinking. I think we miss a couple of really important insights.

    First, as respects mass killings, the actual data tell us that this facet of the “gun violence” problem is too small to bother thinking about. It’s at about the scale of actual importance as accidental shootings. We are missing the forest for the grove of trees.

    We have a really solid grasp of the potential to reduce accidental shootings. We have a century of good data. The perpetrators and victims have a pronounced desire to avoid accidents. There is no reason to believe that accidents might suddenly surge because of some environmental change (e.g., an overnight increase of the gun inventory by a factor of 10; an overnight increase of gun owners by 50%.) This reasoning is solid.

    But, the reasoning (about extrapolating the low rate of shooting accidents) has NOTHING to do with our assessment of mass shootings. We should be asking ourselves whether we can imagine any plausible scenarios where the propensity to mass shootings might suddenly skyrocket. We haven’t done this; at least not to the extent that we ought to be contingency planning.

    Can we imagine any significant-sized group that might be inclined to terrorizing America with a wave of mass shootings? E.g., some religiously-inspired cult? How about an invasion by trans-national organized crime soldiers? Perhaps some domestic group with a profound sense of grievance? Have we any indication from history – our own or that of other nations – where any such thing might have occured before?

    How about an invasion by some foreign power? In the War of 1812 the British invaded America and burned the executive mansion (whereupon it was painted white.) It is said, apocryphally, that the Japanese never attempted to invade the American mainland because they expected to face a “rifle behind every blade of grass”. Is there any nation on earth with a growing wherewithal to undertake a ground invasion of America within the foreseeable future? How about any nation whose leadership is so out-of-touch with it’s actual impotence relative to America’s that it might attempt an attack – especially if it could be perpetrated at arm’s length to avoid a clear trail of origin?

    How unprepared would America be if its stockpile of repeating rifles were sequestered? Imagine if the stock medium-to-standard power rifles were NOT widely distributed in locations where they would be needed to respond within minutes? Suppose all these rifles were locked-up in community arsenals. Fathers and grandfathers would be unable to grab their rifles and drive to the nearest school to set-up a defensive perimeter.

    The clock-tower shooting at the U-TX-Austin is instructive. The perpetrator was pinned-down by students who retrieved hunting rifles from pickups parked on campus. That facilitated a couple of cops and a civilian scaling the tower to neutralize the shooter.

    The isolated perpetrators we notice today are nothing of the threat of easily anticipated and overwhelming perpetrators which we should be worried about. Apart from the precautions of marksmanship and readiness, what gun controls would give any protections against the threats we should be worried about in the future?

    Second, why do mass shootings attract such broad-spread concern?

    Suicides account for 2/3’rds of all gun deaths (but few woundings). Every individual has some control over the risk of suicide in his own family. If s/he feels at risk s/he can lock-up her/his own guns or not keep arms at home. This is a personally-manageable risk.

    Homicide by gunshot accounts for 1/3 of all gun deaths and most of the non-fatal woundings. Most (not all) voters can minimize the risk of becoming a victim of a homicide (or attempt) by judiciously choosing the municipality in which they live and where they travel. Unless one’s financial circumstances condemn oneself to living in an “inner city”, one has very little risk of homicide by gun. This is a personally-manageable risk for all but inner-city residents.

    But MASS shootings are not personally-manageable. One could become a victim of such a rare incident simply by shopping in one’s neighborhood Walmart; or, spending an evening in an entertainment venue. The only defense is to cloister oneself at home and shop at Amazon. Here, we have a risk that no one can manage personally.

    And what do we do when we feel strongly about a risk we feel we can’t manage personally? We cry: “There ought to be a law!!!” and “Call Washington!!!”

    ‘I can’t find a girlfriend who wants to go out with me!’
    ‘I have a problem with my nagging wife!’

    Same knee-jerk responses: “There ought to be a law!!!” and “Call Washington!!!” Why should we be surprised that our fellow voters’ knee-jerk reaction to mass shootings is to seek a government-imposed solution?

    I don’t know how to capitalize on either of the two foregoing insights. Perhaps we could see a way to put them together.

    Should there be a mass outbreak of terroristic public-venue shootings, who would be there to protect you? Would there be enough police to cover all the schools, malls, auditoriums, etc.? How much more in taxes would you be willing to pay to put a cop in every vulnerable venue?
    Would they be properly kitted out with rifles and scopes to respond to a shooter in a high-ground position?

    Is there any effective action that Congress could take; apart from “calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”? What might that action be? Could the perpetrators we really NEED to be worried about be able to circumvent the actions we are recommending that Congress take?

    1. avatar Dude says:

      Mark, it sounds like you’re promoting personal responsibility. This is antithetical to left wing ideology. People can’t solve problems, only government can do that. That’s how they get elected. They’re going to solve all of your problems for you. This of course requires loads of cash and a massive, inefficient, constantly growing bureaucracy. It’s okay though because the money will only come from those rich Aholes (wink wink). Now you’re dependent on us and you have no choice but to continue to elect us.

    2. avatar rt66paul says:

      ” Unless one’s financial circumstances condemn oneself to living in an “inner city”, one has very little risk of homicide by gun. This is a personally-manageable risk for all but inner-city residents.”

      The inner city is not a cheap place to live. Yes, many live off of the scraps of others, but these people are free to move to cheaper run-down suburbs. The only thing keeping them there is the access to drugs and their family. Most homes can be sold(with the possible exception of Detroit), for enough to start over in a nicer place, even if they have to go on the dole.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “The inner city is not a cheap place to live.”

        That is the very sad truth.

        It is very expensive to be poor. Store rent in the inner-city is very high, and the stores have a very high shoplifting rate, and that jacks up expensive prices even higher…

    3. avatar Wretched Hack says:

      Thank you for your excellent commentary!

      When does Volume 2 get published?!

    4. avatar Dani in WA says:

      “Can we imagine any significant-sized group that might be inclined to terrorizing America with a wave of mass shootings? … Perhaps some domestic group with a profound sense of grievance?”

      How much would it take for a political faction to inspire and sponsor and ready just a dozen martyrs? Perhaps committing one murderous act per diem in various locations across the country using weaponry high on the list for demonization. The Twelve Days of Bloodmas doesn’t seem that unrealistic.

  11. avatar Dude says:

    Why isn’t the media ringing the alarm bells over government ICE facilities coming under attack? A couple of those attacks were very close to being tragic. Is it a problem that a mob took down and burned the American Flag at a government facility and raised a Mexican Flag in it’s place? Isn’t it newsworthy that the congressional squad wouldn’t condemn these terrorist attacks when asked specifically to do so?

    1. avatar WI Patriot says:

      Because the left never, and will never admit to violence when perpetrated by their disciples…as a matter of fact, they not only encourage it, they embrace it…

      1. avatar Jimbo says:

        That’s slot of assuming on your part. I am a Democrat and I absolutely condemn the people giving these threats. You should assume less and try to meet people and understand their ideals even if you don’t agree. Don’t be stuck in you ult right tar pit.

        1. avatar WI Patriot says:

          Did I say “democrat”…???
          NOPE, reading comprehension must NOT be your strong suit…
          I “assumed” NOTHING, as a matter of fact, what I stated is a factual, but you, being a “democrat” became immediately butthurt, and thus fitting the stereotype…
          Learn to accept what you have embraced, learn to know when something is addressed at you and QUIT defending the left for their violent narrow minded ways…

          DOLT…

        2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “You should assume less and try to meet people and understand their ideals even if you don’t agree.”

          Jimbo, half my family votes Democrat.

          I’m very familiar with the ‘Progressive’ mindset, and quite frankly, it’s based on a very dangerous naive idealism. That everybody is naturally good at heart, and wants to get along with everybody else.

          Bull-fucking shit. Evil is real, callous disregard is *very* real, and there are plenty of folks out there that will clean you out if they have half the chance to do so.

          That. Is. Reality…

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I am a Democrat and I absolutely condemn the people giving these threats.”

          Well, your “stars”, celebrities, news-making politicians do not. And you ride in the bus they are driving. It is their face the electorate sees, not yours. Ask not for whom the bell tolls….unless you are certain you are one of the favored chorus who will be exempted from the Dimwitocrat reign of terror soon upon us.

          BTW, if your “ideals” start and end with government as the source of happiness, there is nothing more to learn about people we disagree with.

  12. avatar Dude says:

    From The Hill:

    Michael Hammond, legislative counsel for Gun Owners of America, said his group has been in touch with the offices of GOP senators, warning them: “If you think that you’re going to win the next election by destroying your base, you better think again.”

    Hammond said he thinks Trump is already backing off from a push for universal background checks, and would propose something smaller, like an enhanced version of the “Fix NICS” law improving the reporting of information to the existing background check system. Congress passed that bill last year.

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who would be expected to hold a floor vote on any potential deal, is seen as a major question mark in the effort to advance gun legislation. He has long opposed gun control measures, though he cracked the door open slightly this month.

    The Kentucky Republican said background checks and “red flag” laws to help keep guns away from mentally ill people would be “two items that for sure will be front and center as we see what we can come together on and pass.”

    1. avatar Karl says:

      Mentally ill per who?

      1. avatar Dude says:

        Your dime-store psychologist neighbor?

  13. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Statistics Don’t Show an Increase in Mass Shootings But the Narrative Marches On”

    The narrative will always “march on”, has for yrs and yrs, liberals will keep lying, and some will keep believing…

  14. avatar Five says:

    All the miss-information and out right lies, . . . I actually am starting to wonder if there are any group that would have legal grounds for bringing slander lawsuits?

  15. avatar Joatmon says:

    I’ll leave the front door open.
    May be a little slick for the late comers though.

  16. avatar BusyBeef says:

    402 deaths by rifle last year
    696 by fist and hands

    320,000,000 people in the country.

    You be the judge.

  17. avatar SpecialEd says:

    If Slick Willy could have only kept it in his pants, the world would have never heard of her.

  18. avatar James (Crow) Johnson says:

    Doing something stupid is always better than doing nothing. That’s called progress.

    1. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

      nope…
      busy highway…I stop and do nothing
      you go ahead and cross and get killed…because you have to “do something”…
      same concept…
      sometimes it is better to sit back and do nothing

  19. avatar Diane Salerno says:

    It’s not about guns. It’s about feeling safe when we go to public places. Most of us leave our guns at home where our children don’t have access. One innocent is one too many.

    1. avatar John in AK says:

      Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I’ll respond to you just this once; If you go off on a tangent, ye shall be placed permanently on ‘ignore.’

      ‘Feeling safe’ is not, was never, and will never be, the same as ‘being safe.’

      I ‘feel safe’ in the bathtub, while knowing full well that drownings in bathtubs are commonplace. I sleep in a bed, with the knowledge that MOST people DIE in those things. I continue to ‘feel safe’ while driving a motor vehicle on public roadways, in the certainty that on any given day, in the United States alone, full 110 people die doing the exact same thing. I occasionally visit a physician, understanding that each year 250,000 or more people die from medical error or negligence.

      I ‘feel safe’ in public places, realizing that on RARE occasions bad things happen in them, such as the almost infinitesimal chance of a shooting of some sort–but one of the reasons that I ‘feel safe’ is that I carry a firearm. It’s also why I have fire extinguishers in several locations in my home, seat-belts and air-bags in my vehicles, and other such bizarre accoutrements in preparation for things that will almost certainly NEVER happen. I also know CPR, on the rare eventuality that I might need it. My version of ‘feeling safe’ is based upon the knowledge that I just might be able to DO something if ‘feeling safe’ isn’t really BEING safe.

      ‘Most people,’ by the way, leave their guns at home when they go out for their own reasons; They may not actually believe that anything ‘bad’ will happen to them, and refuse to prepare for the possibility; That, or their local government will punish them severely if they’re caught with one on their person without the proper permission slip, so they make the assumption that if they ‘feel safe,’ then they must BE ‘safe,’ and that government will protect them.

      They may also die, helplessly.

      I, and mine, are NOT going to volunteer to be the ‘one innocent’ that is too many due to a simple lack of preparation.

    2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “One innocent is one too many.”

      Ahhh, now we’re getting somewhere. Let’s dive down this hole…

      If you believe the lives lost by guns is unacceptably high, are you actively trying to get passenger vehicles banned as well? They kill roughly the same numbers annually, Diane.

      Oh, you’re now going to tell me that “Cars aren’t designed to kill people.”

      Diane, that makes it even *worse*. Automakers spend literally *billions* yearly trying to improve safety, and yet they still kill tens of thousands annually. About the same numbers as guns do.

      Now, here’s where it gets interesting – We can *easily* save ten thousand lives lost in crashes every year. We really can!

      Deaths in cars happens most because of what happens to the human body when cars crash. Bones break, organs get crushed. It’s not a nice way to go. (I got a taste of a crush injury last year when a car hit me while I was bike riding. Not fun.)

      Here’s how to save thousands of lives yearly. Drastically lower the speed limit. Make the maximum national speed limit in America 30 MPH, *strictly* enforced.

      That is a *guaranteed* way to save thousands of lives annually, Diane. The only cost will be that it takes you a few minuets more a day to get where you are going. That’s a perfectly reasonable trade for thousands of lives saved, don’t you think?

      Remember, Diane, you were the one that said “One innocent is one too many.”.

      Or are you so fucking selfish that getting where you are going a few lousy minutes sooner is more important than thousands of lives annually?

      Answer the question, Diane. Is ten minuets out of your busy day more important than 10 thousand innocents a year dead?

      Well?

      (Someone a far better writer than I could hone that argument into a really vicious one that could make Diane literally cry. If you could improve it, please do, and let me see it. I’m sick and fucking tired of the “One innocent is one too many.” card being played without a devastating rebuttal… 😉 )

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        Oh, and, Diane? I wasn’t lying about the $130,000 thousand dollar hospital bill I racked up last December. You *really* want to avoid spending a week over Christmas in the trauma ward at your local hospital…

  20. avatar jwm says:

    Wow, diane, arianna, james, jimbo. 4 new trolls in one thread. Throw in pg2 and we got a full hand.

    kapo bloomberg must be spreading the 30 pieces of silver around. Except pg2. Its so over the top obvious that he’s paid by big pharma to make anti vaxxers look stupid.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      Hopefully the little twerp has read the post by TTAG mangement about his crap and lay off mouthing off about it.

      But If he does… *snicker* 😉

      1. avatar Pg2 says:

        Funny how often your sock puppet accounts pull me into conversations where I’m not even involved. ..real question Geoff/guesty/Knute, do you get reimbursed here to push a leftist agenda while pretending to be a 2nd Amendment supporter? Or are you really as stupid as you appear and do this out of boredom?

    2. avatar pg2 says:

      @jwm….Priceless from the leftist clown who invokes the mythical Russian trolls when it fits his narrative.

  21. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    So says Kami,Willie Browns willie receptacle .

  22. avatar Draven says:

    ‘Sen Kamala Harris doesn’t understand that Congress can’t pass an ex post facto law, because the CA Assembly isn’t forbidden to.”

    FIFY

  23. avatar Miner49er says:

    It all depends on who’s ox is being gored.

    “Republican Rep. Michael Turner of Ohio has a top notch rating from the NRA and has generally toed the party line on conservative guns-for-all efforts. But this week he’s now calling for an assault weapons ban, magazine size limits and new red-flag laws—the whole gun safety shebang.

    When the Dayton mass shooting began, Rep. Michael Turner’s daughter and a friend were across the street. He tweeted his reaction as they ran from the scene.

    Turner announced his support for an assault weapons ban two days later.”

    Fox News poll shows 67% of Americans favor assault weapon ban.

    Thanks to all those who have marched with your A.R. 15’s at the courthouse during the tea party revolution, thanks to all those who marched with their tiki-torches at Charlotte, thanks to all those who just had to have the 90 round drum mag, suppressor and tactical gear to wear out in public because they could and it made them feel so strong.

    Couldn’t leave well enough alone, let us all own our A.R. 15’s in quiet anonymity, you had to go pushing them into Walmart’s across the country, glorifying the gun on TV, films and political rallies, shouting about ‘muh gawd-given rights!’.

    Smooth move, bowels…

    1. avatar Shallnot BeInfringed says:

      “…Turner announced his support for an assault weapons ban two days later.”

      Oh, so another traitor has outed himself? Great! Thanks for adding another one to my list of anti-American assholes who have never read and/or understood the Bill of Rights, yet swore to God they’d defend it. The list is getting quite long.

      “Smooth move, bowels…”

      Well… you oughta know all about that, since you’re most certainly full of shit.

  24. avatar GS650G says:

    We can call her Willies Side Action because that is what she is.

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