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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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?

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.”

“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…

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?

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

402 deaths by rifle last year
696 by fist and hands

320,000,000 people in the country.

You be the judge.

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

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

Same results on PRI, a source more left-wingers are likely to believe.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-08-07/mass-shootings-arent-growing-more-common-and-evidence-contradicts-common

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.

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.

So says Kami,Willie Browns willie receptacle .

‘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

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…

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