Another Mass Shooting

[Aristides]

Quote

Using the median analysis, the United States is the only country examined that shows a propensity for mass shootings. The data itself supports this interpretation, as the United States endured mass shooting events all seven years, but the other countries all experienced mass shootings during only one or two years. Thus, in a typical year, most countries experience zero mass shooting deaths, while the US experiences at least a few.

 

[BeaverFever]

On 8/4/2022 at 12:12 AM, Yzermandius19 said:

nope

take out the one shooting

and Norway still has more mass shootings per capita than America

mass shootings are a cultural thing

not a legal thing

it's the culture that drives them, not gun control

The country of Norway has fewer people than tue Greater Toronto Area, genius.  Therefore a single isolated shooting results in a higher  “per  capita “ rate. That’s what you keep repeating your disputed claim without offering a single piece of evidence or link to back it up. 

[Yzermandius19]

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

The country of Norway has fewer people than tue Greater Toronto Area, genius.  Therefore a single isolated shooting results in a higher  “per  capita “ rate. That’s what you keep repeating your disputed claim without offering a single piece of evidence or link to back it up. 

take out that one mass shooting from the total mass shooting deaths and they still kill more per capita than America

you just suck at math

[BeaverFever]

10 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

take out that one mass shooting from the total mass shooting deaths and they still kill more per capita than America

you just suck at math

No.  You clearly suck at math and don’t get it. They’re a tiny country with the population the size of a city. Therefore “per capita” is always going to be high even if they only have ones incident. 

[Yzermandius19]

11 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

No.  You clearly suck at math and don’t get it. They’re a tiny country with the population the size of a city. Therefore “per capita” is always going to be high even if they only have ones incident. 

false

other small countries don't have their per capita mass shooting count

size and one shooting doesn't explain it

nor does it explain why France also has more mass shootings per capita than America

turns out gun control doesn't influence mass shooting numbers the way you think it does

Edited August 6, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[BeaverFever]

16 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

false

other small countries don't have their per capita mass shooting count

size and one shooting doesn't explain it

nor does it explain why France also has more mass shootings per capita than America

turns out gun control doesn't influence mass shooting numbers the way you think it does

Other small countries haven’t had the random misfortune of an isolated incident that will send their numbers skyrocketing. 
 

The whole “per capita” approach is a red herring trying to leverage USAs large population against much smaller European countries    France is also much smaller than USA and most of its mass shootings wee terrorist attacks during a specific period whereas USA is random crazies that can and do go off  at any time 

Between 1998 to 2019, the United States reported 101 attacks and 816 deaths from mass shootings. France had just eight mass shootings and 179 deaths, most are from terrorist attacks that occurred after 2014. 
 

Of course the availability of guns is related to incidence of gun crimes the same way availability of cars is related to incidence of car accidents and the availability of ice cream is related to incidence of ice cream stains. It’s idiotic to think otherwise. 

[Yzermandius19]

23 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Other small countries haven’t had the random misfortune of an isolated incident that will send their numbers skyrocketing. 
 

The whole “per capita” approach is a red herring trying to leverage USAs large population against much smaller European countries    France is also much smaller than USA and most of its mass shootings wee terrorist attacks during a specific period whereas USA is random crazies that can and do go off  at any time 

Between 1998 to 2019, the United States reported 101 attacks and 816 deaths from mass shootings. France had just eight mass shootings and 179 deaths, most are from terrorist attacks that occurred after 2014. 
 

Of course the availability of guns is related to incidence of gun crimes the same way availability of cars is related to incidence of car accidents and the availability of ice cream is related to incidence of ice cream stains. It’s idiotic to think otherwise. 

you have no proof of that

the availability of cars doesn't lead to more accidents

the availability of ice cream doesn't lead to ice cream stains

the availability of guns doesn't lead to more gun crime

how people drive affects the number of accidents

how people eat ice cream affects the number of stains

how people use guns affects the number of shootings

the problem in every instance is not the object, but the people using the object

using policy to try and limit the people who get the object doesn't address the core issue and is doomed to fail

[BeaverFever]

4 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

you have no proof of that

the availability of cars doesn't lead to more accidents

the availability of ice cream doesn't lead to ice cream stains

the availability of guns doesn't lead to more gun crime

how people drive affects the number of accidents

how people eat ice cream affects the number of stains

how people use guns affects the number of shootings

the problem in every instance is not the object, but the people using the object

using policy to try and limit the people who get the object doesn't address the core issue and is doomed to fail

 What you list are factors,  but it’s a primary fact that places with no cars have no car accidents and places with many cars have many car accidents  
 

Another major factor beyond availability is regulation. Are you arguing that traffic laws aka “car control”  have no impact on traffic  accidents?

[Yzermandius19]

2 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 What you list are factors,  but it’s a primary fact that places with no cars have no car accidents and places with many cars have many car accidents  
 

Another major factor beyond availability is regulation. Are you arguing that traffic laws aka “car control”  have no impact on traffic  accidents?

I am arguing that car control is effective and gun control isn't

availability of cars is not even close to an important factor in car accidents

same with availability of guns and mass shootings

the solution to car accidents isn't to have less cars

the solution to mass shootings isn't to have less guns

[BeaverFever]

4 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

I am arguing that car control is effective and gun control isn't

availability of cars is not even close to an important factor in car accidents

same with availability of guns and mass shootings

the solution to car accidents isn't to have less cars

the solution to mass shootings isn't to have less guns

So why would car control be effective but not gun control?

[Yzermandius19]

8 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

So why would car control be effective but not gun control?

because gun control doesn't address the source of the issue

it addresses the object, not the person

car control addresses the source, the driver not the car

Edited August 6, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[BeaverFever]

39 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

because gun control doesn't address the source of the issue

it addresses the object, not the person

car control addresses the source, the driver not the car

Not true. Gun control and car control both have provisions that address the users and the objects.
 

The laws specifying the standards that car manufacturers must meet and what condition owners must keep them in are abundant.   Do you not drive?

And, like Car control, gun control also address the person by specifying  who can and can’t own a gun, how it must be safely used/stored, and proper records kept. Car control requires a license with practical and written tests, traceable registration, and insurance, and so should gun control.

Edited August 6, 2022 by BeaverFever

[Yzermandius19]

12 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Not true. Gun control and car control both have provisions that address the users and the objects.
 

The laws specifying the standards that car manufacturers must meet and what condition owners must keep them in are abundant.   Do you not drive?

And, like Car control, gun control also address the person by specifying  who can and can’t own a gun, how it must be safely used/stored, and proper records kept. Car control requires a license with practical and written tests, traceable registration, and insurance, and so should gun control.

none of the gun control measures actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals

the restrictions only apply to law abiding people who should own guns, not those who shouldn't

they fail to address the issue

there is also no car rights in the constitution

you compare apples to oranges

applying car logic to guns doesn't work

Edited August 6, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[BeaverFever]

19 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

none of the gun control measures actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals

the restrictions only apply to law abiding people who should own guns, not those who shouldn't

they fail to address the issue

there is also no car rights in the constitution

you compare apples to oranges

applying car logic to guns doesn't work

Car control laws don’t keep cars out of the hands of criminals either amd they only apply to law abiding citizens …right?

By that logic why have any laws at all since criminals don’t obey laws?  Why outlaw murder or rape when criminals don’t obey laws?

Also do you believe  the second amendment gives Americans the right to own nuclear weapons or other WMD?  If not why not?

Have you actually thought any of your arguments through?

[James99]

On 5/15/2022 at 9:33 AM, ExFlyer said:

But your greatness lost to the small nation of Canada. We even burnt down your original white house LOL

Lol yeah except that the Brits did. 

[ExFlyer]

8 hours ago, James99 said:

Lol yeah except that the Brits did. 

Took you 3 months to google that??

Missed the point entirely. I was responding to Great American that was banned on the day I made that comment.

[James99]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Took you 3 months to google that??

Missed the point entirely. I was responding to Great American that was banned on the day I made that comment.

I'm reading through this conversation 3 months later because it is a topic that interests me. I had to respond to you because your comment is so ignorant.

I didn't miss any point. You are trying to discredit the US by saying that the Canadians burned the White House. Which is not true. 

[ExFlyer]

1 minute ago, James99 said:

I'm reading through this conversation 3 months later because it is a topic that interests me. I had to respond to you because your comment is so ignorant.

I didn't miss any point. You are trying to discredit the US by saying that the Canadians burned the White House. Which is not true. 

Ignorant??

Responding to an arrogant banned American for their comments is ignorant?  Discrediting a single American because of his comments and explaining the differences would have taken far too long. He got the point and idea, sorry you did not.