• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Today's Mass Shooting (part 3)

Why? Much better that we actually lock up career criminals rather them out over and over again.
Jurisdictions such as Canada and the EU that have better gun control laws in place also have far fewer mass shootings.

'No Way to Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly HappensWP
 
Another update on the 18 mass shootings that occurred in the four days after the Maine mass shooting. I challenged fellow forum members to use those random 18 mass shootings to highlight the examples of white mass shooters that they claim I ignore. No one has bothered.



2 black males were arrested for the Clinton, North Carolina mass shooting that left 5 dead.

2 additional black males were identified in the Miami mass shooting.

1 additional black male was arrested for the Wiggins, Mississippi mass shooting.

I will update the list below, feel free to contribute and show everyone all of these white mass shooters I keep ignoring.


18 mass shootings.
2 Latino males.
15 black males.
0 white males.


October 26 – Clinton, North Carolina – 5 killed – Drug-related
Black male – Robert Andrew Daquan Williams
Black male – Derek Donte George

October 27 – Mansfield, Ohio – 2 killed, 4 wounded – House party
Black male – Cyrus J Ellerbe
(Check for more later)

October 27 – Little Rock, Arkansas – 1 killed, 4 wounded – Gas station parking lot
Black male – Kamarion Stokes

October 28 – Chicago, Illinois – 4 wounded – Drive-by

October 28 – Texarkana, Texas – 3 killed, 3 wounded
Black male – Breoskii Warren
Black male – Devon Hayden

October 28 – Chula Vista, California – 4 wounded
Black male – (Juvenile, CCTV)

October 28 – Decatur, Georgia – 4 wounded – Drive-by

October 28 – Cumberland, Maryland – 1 killed, 3 wounded – Outside of club
Black male – Devonte Warfield

October 28 – Las Cruces, New Mexico – 7 wounded – Drive-by

October 28 – Lake Charles, Louisiana – 6 wounded
Black male – Artavien Green

October 29 – Azusa, California – 4 wounded – House party

October 29 – Chicago, Illinois – 15 wounded
Black male – William A Groves

October 29 – Wiggins, Mississippi – 1 killed, 3 wounded
Black male – Montrell Malik Quinn II
Black male – Zadarruous Sutton

October 29 – Tampa, Florida – 2 killed, 15 wounded
Black male/mixed-race – Tyrell Stephen Phillips
Black male – Kaydn Abney
Black male – Dwyane Eugene Tillman Jr

October 29 – Atlanta, Georgia – 1 killed, 3 wounded – Gas station parking lot

October 29 – Indianapolis, Indiana – 1 killed, 9 wounded – House party
Alan Peregrino, Juvenile, look for pictures later

October 29 – Dodge City, Kansas – 2 killed, 2 wounded
Latino male – Ricardo J. Cadena-Garcia

October 29 – Wilson, North Carolina – 4 wounded
Latino male – Braulio Fuentes-Martinez
 
Last edited:
Jurisdictions such as Canada and the EU that have better gun control laws in place also have far fewer mass shootings.

'No Way to Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly HappensWP
Causation? What were the gun homicide rates before they had these laws?
 
Another update on the 18 mass shootings that occurred in the four days after the Maine mass shooting. I challenged fellow forum members to use those random 18 mass shootings to highlight the examples of white mass shooters that they claim I ignore. No one has bothered.



2 black males were arrested for the Clinton, North Carolina mass shooting that left 5 dead.

2 additional black males were identified in the Miami mass shooting.

1 additional black male was arrested for the Wiggins, Mississippi mass shooting.

I will update the list below, feel free to contribute and show everyone all of these white mass shooters I keep ignoring.


18 mass shootings.
2 Latino males.
15 black males.
0 white males.


October 26 – Clinton, North Carolina – 5 killed – Drug-related
Black male – Robert Andrew Daquan Williams
Black male – Derek Donte George

October 27 – Mansfield, Ohio – 2 killed, 4 wounded – House party
Black male – Cyrus J Ellerbe
(Check for more later)

October 27 – Little Rock, Arkansas – 1 killed, 4 wounded – Gas station parking lot
Black male – Kamarion Stokes

October 28 – Chicago, Illinois – 4 wounded – Drive-by

October 28 – Texarkana, Texas – 3 killed, 3 wounded
Black male – Breoskii Warren
Black male – Devon Hayden

October 28 – Chula Vista, California – 4 wounded
Black male – (Juvenile, CCTV)

October 28 – Decatur, Georgia – 4 wounded – Drive-by

October 28 – Cumberland, Maryland – 1 killed, 3 wounded – Outside of club
Black male – Devonte Warfield

October 28 – Las Cruces, New Mexico – 7 wounded – Drive-by

October 28 – Lake Charles, Louisiana – 6 wounded
Black male – Artavien Green

October 29 – Azusa, California – 4 wounded – House party

October 29 – Chicago, Illinois – 15 wounded
Black male – William A Groves

October 29 – Wiggins, Mississippi – 1 killed, 3 wounded
Black male – Montrell Malik Quinn II
Black male – Zadarruous Sutton

October 29 – Tampa, Florida – 2 killed, 15 wounded
Black male/mixed-race – Tyrell Stephen Phillips
Black male – Kaydn Abney
Black male – Dwyane Eugene Tillman Jr

October 29 – Atlanta, Georgia – 1 killed, 3 wounded – Gas station parking lot

October 29 – Indianapolis, Indiana – 1 killed, 9 wounded – House party
Alan Peregrino, Juvenile, look for pictures later

October 29 – Dodge City, Kansas – 2 killed, 2 wounded
Latino male – Ricardo J. Cadena-Garcia

October 29 – Wilson, North Carolina – 4 wounded
Latino male – Braulio Fuentes-Martinez
These are good anecdotal examples of why gun control is a good idea.
 
There is little causal connection between gun control laws and homicide.

Perhaps the intention of those who advocate such laws is that they expect them to reduce the prevalence of guns.

It's possible they think the absurdly high number of shootings in the US is causally connected to the high prevalence of guns, rather than being directly due to their being an insufficient number of laws. Do you suppose that might be the case?
 
Causation? What were the gun homicide rates before they had these laws?
Good thing there's actual science to answer your question.


The bit you're looking for:

Results

In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards. Declines in firearm‐related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p = 0.04), firearm suicides (p = 0.007) and firearm homicides (p = 0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased. No evidence of substitution effect for suicides or homicides was observed. The rates per 100 000 of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the revised gun laws.

Conclusions

Australia's 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern. Removing large numbers of rapid‐firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides.
 
Good thing there's actual science to answer your question.


The bit you're looking for:
england_wales.JPG

england1920.jpg
 
Last edited:
An analogy could probably be made with knife crime in the UK. The UK has always had knives, but not until recently has knife crime become a serious problem. It's not the knife.
 
These are good anecdotal examples of why gun control is a good idea.
There are many good reasons to have strict controls on he ownership of guns and other weapons. Hence why the founding fathers explicitly tied the possession of weapons to being an active member of a government controlled militia in the US constitution.
 

The UK homicide figures around the 2000's were heavily distorted by one man, Dr Harold Shipman, he was believed to have killed over 230 people over three decades but his victims weren't recognised as having been murdered until his crimes came to light and the subsequent police investigation and enquiry. British crime statistics aren't revised historically so suspected victims going back to the 1960's were included in the late 1990's to 2005 figures. UK homicides are so low that this was enough to cause a peak.
 
You just can't stand that it has been shown that gun control can be effective, can you?
Ugh, and it didn't work in Brazil because? If you take a population that already had low rates of homicide and say same later policy caused that low rate of homicide then you have no understanding of causation.
 
The UK homicide figures around the 2000's were heavily distorted by one man, Dr Harold Shipman, he was believed to have killed over 230 people over three decades but his victims weren't recognised as having been murdered until his crimes came to light and the subsequent police investigation and enquiry. British crime statistics aren't revised historically so suspected victims going back to the 1960's were included in the late 1990's to 2005 figures. UK homicides are so low that this was enough to cause a peak.
UK homicide rates were low before any gun control.
 
THE AUSTRALIAN FIREARMS BUYBACK AND ITS EFFECT ON GUN DEATHS

This paper takes a closer look at the effects of the NFA on gun deaths. Using a battery of structural break tests, there is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides. In addition, there also does not appear to be any substitution effects—that reduced access to firearms may have led those bent on committing homicide or suicide to use alternative methods. Since the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, two other shooting incidents have attracted much media attention in Australia. An incident on October 21, 2002 at Monash University, in which a gunman killed two people and wounded five, prompted the National Handgun Buyback Act of 2003. Under this scheme that ran from July to December 2003, 70,000 handguns were removed from the community at a cost of approximately A$69 million. Another shooting on June 18, 2007, in which a lone gunman killed a man who had come to the aid of an assault victim and seriously wounded two others in Melbourne’s central business district during morning rush hour, renewed calls for tougher gun controls. Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.
 
I post a sourced scientific paper from the high-impact peer-reviewed journal Injury Prevention and you respond with an unsourced paper published on (checks) johnrlott.tripod.com.

Yeah, that's how to argue.
You're better than this art. How "not" to argue is to avoid fallacious argument (you, of course, know this). Arguing against the source without checking the actual source could be described as a genetic fallacy. Again, knowing the body of your word, you're probably aware of this fallacy.

The source of the paper referenced by Trausti is the Contemporary Economic Policy journal. Here's a look at how reliable it is and how it matches your requirements.

Contemporary Economic Policy is a reliable academic journal because it is peer-reviewed and published by Wiley, a reputable publisher. Its reliability is supported by its rigorous standards, which include a peer-review process, author guidelines on ethical standards, and its publication by the Western Economic Association International (WEAI). The journal has also published work from notable economists, including Nobel laureates

It, the journal, has a scimago h index of 59*. Scimago ratings measure cites, it is influenced by output of course. It has an impact factor of 1.7*. I would consider the paper to be within the discipline of Political Science/Public policy where, although relative, a score of 1.5 -3 is generally good.

The paper was written by Wang-Sheng Lee who is an associate professor at the Centre for Development Economics and Sustainability at Monash University. He has a personal scimago rating of 20 and co-authored by Sandy Suardi who is Professor Faculty of Business and Law, School of Business, Wollongong. He has a personal scimago rating of 23. This shows that their peers aren't ignoring them and their work is considered reliable.

But the big question relating to my answer to your fallacious response is how do the two compare? Here you go.

Yours -

The 2024 Impact Factor for Injury Prevention is 2.0. The 5-year Impact Factor is 3.4. Other metrics include a CiteScore of 5.7 and a Journal Citation Indicator (JCI) of 0.74.
  • Impact Factor (2024): 2.0
  • 5-Year Impact Factor: 3.4
  • CiteScore: 5.7
  • Journal Citation Indicator (JCI): 0.74
  • Other metrics: Eigenfactor is 0.00452 and it ranks 215 out of 419 in the Public, Environmental & Occupational Health category.

Trausti's
The 2024 Impact Factor for Contemporary Economic Policy is 1.868, as calculated by exaly.com. Other sources list a similar 2024 Impact Factor of 1.7, notes a 2025 Impact Score of 1.6, a 2-year Impact Factor of 1.5, a 5-year Impact Factor of 1.4, and a CiteScore of 3.6.
  • 2024 Impact Factor: 1.868
  • 2025 Impact Score: 1.6
  • 2-Year Impact Factor: 1.5
  • 5-Year Impact Factor: 1.4
  • CiteScore: 3.6

I would make the case that journal lags behind your source but can be relied upon.

Now that we've got that out of the way let the general sniping in favour of considering factual data re-commence.

*Research.com - specifically
 
Then why not link to the study, why link to someone's interpretation of it?

I mean, neat catch and all, but...
I don't understand? What study do you want me to link to that hasn't already been posted? The one that art was responding to? Surely not?
 
Last edited:
I don't understand? What study do you want me to link to that hasn't already been posted? The one that art was responding to? Surely not?

Despite quoting you, it was more of a general question. The stats you quoted are from a study, right? Right. So if the stats are from that study, why link to "johnrlott.tripod.com"? If I were Arth I wouldn't have clicked on that ◊◊◊◊ either. That's a completely reasonable action to take, especially in today's age. I have no reason to trust that site, and not trusting it isn't an ad hom. It's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ cybersecurity lol.
 
Despite quoting you, it was more of a general question. OK, got that.

The stats you quoted are from a study, right? What stats are you talking about? Do you mean the stats pertaining to how reliable the original article referenced by art and linked by Trausti was, that's all I quoted and linked to? You're all over the place here?

Right. So if the stats are from that study, why link to "johnrlott.tripod.com"? I didn't but why not? The bona-fide, peer reviewed article was available from there! I get that John R lott may be, in your eyes, a rabid pro gun nut but he didn't write the article! Does it support Lott's views? Perhaps and then again perhaps it gives a fair and balanced picture on the results of the Australian buy back but you'll never know because, in this case, you prefer to stick your fingers in your ears, cover your eyes and go blah, blah, blah! You're so entrenched in your position that you won't consider anything at all that might, any small way, give you pause for thought.

If I were Arth I wouldn't have clicked on that ◊◊◊◊ either. You/he didn't/don't have to, see below. Anyway, can you tell me how you arrived at the conclusion that the link was whatever disparaging word the censor is hiding?

That's a completely reasonable action to take, especially in today's age. A more reasonable action, in my opinion, would be to consider whether the article might assist you in understanding the matter at hand from a different perspective, taking 30 seconds to look up John Lott and then being in a better position to decide if you wished to read the article by clicking through to it. Failing that or finding John Lott questionable, you could have searched for the article directly by inputting it's name into your chosen search engine and said search engine would have taken you to it, by-passing that dastardly John R Lott and his unscrupulous site altogether.

I have no reason to trust that site. You have no reason not to by exactly the same measure of research you put into your decision.

and not trusting it isn't an ad hom. I was specific and never mentioned ad hom. The reason for this is that a genetic fallacy has a different focus, namely the argument's origin or history and not the character of the person making the argument. Why are you attempting to make the case that I did?

It's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ cybersecurity lol. Oh FFS! Yes, by all means be careful online but when you have so many other avenues to the source article this is the poorest reason (and yet the best you can think of) that I have ever heard not to consider a, possibly, opposing position.
 
Please learn how to multiquote.
That's all you've got? I wanted to respond to plauge331's post point by point and the forum software kept breaking responses into those individual "boxes". I'll make deal with you though, I'll try and do better if you follow suit. How does that sound?
 
That's all you've got? I wanted to respond to plauge331's post point by point and the forum software kept breaking responses into those individual "boxes". I'll make deal with you though, I'll try and do better if you follow suit. How does that sound?
Yes, that's what it's supposed to do. That's what we want it to do. Please let it do it.
 
Yes, that's what it's supposed to do. What? like this?

That's what we want it to do. Then you won't have any problem seeing this. If that is the case what was your problem with my previous post?

Please let it do it. I did, as you could and can plainly see. Unless I'm totally misunderstanding you, what is your complaint?

All this because I pointed out the flaw in your, "Yeah that's how to argue" jibe. Classic diversionary tactics following #2224.

I'll back out, having said my piece, to prevent further derail.
 
To be clear, I wasn't attempting to counter your argument.
You're better than this art. How "not" to argue is to avoid fallacious argument (you, of course, know this). Arguing against the source without checking the actual source could be described as a genetic fallacy. Again, knowing the body of your word, you're probably aware of this fallacy.
This
The source of the paper referenced by Trausti is the Contemporary Economic Policy journal. Here's a look at how reliable it is and how it matches your requirements.
Is how
It, the journal, has a scimago h index of 59*. Scimago ratings measure cites, it is influenced by output of course. It has an impact factor of 1.7*. I would consider the paper to be within the discipline of Political Science/Public policy where, although relative, a score of 1.5 -3 is generally good
You do a multiquote
The paper was written by Wang-Sheng Lee who is an associate professor at the Centre for Development Economics and Sustainability at Monash University. He has a personal scimago rating of 20 and co-authored by Sandy Suardi who is Professor Faculty of Business and Law, School of Business, Wollongong. He has a personal scimago rating of 23. This shows that their peers aren't ignoring them and their work is considered reliable.
Reply.

If you think I'm trying to rebut your response to me, you are wrong. I accept your analysis. I did not do the research. But, it has to be said, neither did Trausti. If he had posted the link to the original paper, rather than a link to a PDF without a landing page on some dude's blog, I wouldn't have had anything to say about it.

Anyway, I lived through 1996 and I saw the response to the Port Arthur massacre unfold on television. I watched as political will rallied around the shock and horror of the atrocity. I saw the anti-gun-control protests, I watched as Tim Fischer argued his case in the rural constituencies and I saw gun owners across the country come around to the necessity of gun control. I have lived through it.

And the fact remains, since we're in the thread specifically about mass shootings, there were 13 mass shootings in the 18 years before 1996, and absolutely zero in more than ten years after. Huge drops were recorded in the rates of firearm deaths of all kinds following the reforms. These are statistical facts. Gun control works. Restricting ownership of semiautomatic and pump-action weapons works. Tight regulations around who is allowed to own a firearm and for what purpose works. The only reason the occasional, very rare mass shootings occur in Australia today is that those tight restrictions have over time been eroded, usually by politicians influenced by the American gun lobby.

Also, it has to be said, this one event in Australia triggered a massive push for gun law reform. How many massacres have there been in the US since 1996 and how has the government and the public responded? Thoughts and prayers.

Gun control works. And that simple fact sends a certain cohort of Americans completely mad.
 
To be clear, I wasn't attempting to counter your argument.
OK.
This

Is how

You do a multiquote
I can't understand why I went the route I did? Of course I know how to multi-quote. Thanks for the kick up the arse!
Why thank you.
If you think I'm trying to rebut your response to me, you are wrong. I accept your analysis. I did not do the research. But, it has to be said, neither did Trausti. If he had posted the link to the original paper, rather than a link to a PDF without a landing page on some dude's blog, I wouldn't have had anything to say about it.
Fair enough but I feel that a little bit of effort on your part wouldn't have hurt. Did you/will you ever read the paper?
...snip... Gun control works. And that simple fact sends a certain cohort of Americans completely mad.
A point not in contention by me.
 
I can't even respond to your post because of how you posted it, but wow did you ever read a lot into it. Holy ◊◊◊◊. First off, I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't care about the childishness that this thread has become and I don't care at all about whoever it is at tripod.whatever. I'm a network security guy that manages 600 users and not clicking on weird ass links is step 1. That's literally network security 101.

My entire point was that if someone were quoting stats from a study, then just use the study and link to the study. Some random guys blog isn't a reliable source, but I've already invested more in this than I care to.

Grats on learning how to use the software. Have a good one.
 
When toting guns in high school was cool

Many of the city’s public high schools had shooting clubs and a few even had gun ranges on their premises, according to accounts from the Department of Education and others.

There were at least three shooting ranges in public schools, the DOE said, including Curtis HS on Staten Island and Erasmus Hall HS in Brooklyn.

Another inside Far Rockaway HS in Queens, which closed in 2011, is shown in a black-and-white archival photo from May 1929 displaying a compartmentalized gun range with at least five windows to shoot from and cranks for students to pull the targets back and forth.


“To accommodate the kids, they even made them these little pull-out benches they can kneel on to shoot from that position or even lie down to shoot,” said Darren Leung, owner of Westside Rifle & Pistol Range in Chelsea, describing the equipment seen in the 89-year-old photo. “What an excellent design.”

Shooting clubs were popular in many schools, even if they didn’t have gun ranges.
 
Most people can handle their guns responsibly. Then we have a Sandy Hook, and these same responsible people think "hey you know this isn't really working out, what with that one in a million that shoots up a school. I think the socially responsible thing to do is let myself be more heavily regulated as a precaution against those who are not responsible".

I like guns, and that's where I'm at.
 
As the great philosopher Jim Jeffries said:

"There is one argument and one argument alone for having a gun. And this is the argument: '◊◊◊◊ off. I like guns.' It's not the best argument, but it's all you've got."
 
The stupid thing is that so many yanks think gun control just means 'they're comin to take mah gunzzzz'- when what it is about is regulation and control....

Ironically when I was still living in NSW, AFTER Port Arthur and the gun buybacks, there were MORE gun owners per capita than most of the US (and still is lol)- what you dont see a lot of is the 'gun fondlers' - you can still get a rifle or shottie (hell its not impossible to get a pistol licence even)

What we DO have however is regulations (that mostly work) that restrict free and easy access at any time to basically anyone... you need to have proper storage and security, pass the backgrounds checks and you can get licenced ...

Ironically its the 'free guns for all' nutters that have caused the most impact on gun ownership in Australia in recent times- those who import illegally and have illegal and unregistered weapons (and have so often been the ones going on shooting rampages in recent times)- which ironically leads to public backlash and pushes BY THE PUBLIC to tighten gun laws further...
Its the 'sovcits' and the like that have been behind most of the recent shootouts with police in the last few years (still countable on a single hand in the last decade mind you lol- FAR less than the US and its 'shootout a day') that have had people agitating for complete bans- good work morons.... (and why they likely weren't allowed to legally own guns in the first place...)

Personally I would be happy for the regs allowing ownership to stay as they are here- but possession of an unregistered/illegal weapon should be bumped up and put in the same category as premeditated murder....
Lock em up and throw away the keys....
 

Back
Top Bottom