Skip to main content

View Diary: RKBA: A point or two (900 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  gun homicide is shrinking, gun accidents have (22+ / 0-)

    dropped off a cliff. What exactly are you talking about.?

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 09:18:08 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Mass slaughters with assault weapons are NOT (10+ / 0-)

      "shrinking"... are you kidding?

      Baby, where I come from...

      by ThatSinger on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 09:59:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You have numbers to back that up? (10+ / 0-)

        I haven't seen any statistics saying mass murders are rising.

        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

        by KVoimakas on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 10:03:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

          •   please substantiate the claim they're (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueness, coquiero

            "shrinking"...

            Baby, where I come from...

            by ThatSinger on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 10:11:14 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'll see what our resident expert says. nt (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tom Seaview, deedogg, PavePusher

              Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

              by KVoimakas on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 10:16:09 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You're ignoring the chart? (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TomP, blueness, poco, S F Hippie, WakeUpNeo

                I would too if I were you…

                Baby, where I come from...

                by ThatSinger on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 10:18:56 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't have the statistics off the top of (4+ / 0-)

                  my head.

                  I emailed someone who does.

                  Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                  by KVoimakas on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 10:21:09 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What does that have to do with the chart? (4+ / 0-)

                    You asked me to back up what I claimed... I did....now you refuse to acknowledge it...

                    Again, I guess I would too if I were you…

                    Baby, where I come from...

                    by ThatSinger on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 10:23:18 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The graph doesn't show what I asked for. (6+ / 0-)

                      The number of mass shootings, period.

                      Not the number of deaths during a mass shooting.

                      This is what I said:

                      I haven't seen any statistics saying mass murders are rising.
                      The most deadly mass murders, according to that chart, have been within the last X amount of years. Not arguing that. I'm asking about the number of mass murders, period. If we have 3 a year right now (just randomly picking numbers) and there are an average of 10 per shooting but we compare that to the 70s where there were 10 a year averaging 4 per shooting...what does that say?

                      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                      by KVoimakas on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 10:26:24 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Right, you move the goalpost… (5+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        S F Hippie, blueness, CwV, WakeUpNeo, Red Bean

                        I didn't say mass murders, I said mass slaughters… You know, like Sandy Hook… Please try to have an honest debate…

                        Baby, where I come from...

                        by ThatSinger on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 10:28:48 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  What makes it a slaughter? 5 people? (6+ / 0-)

                          7?

                          I guess I'm not up on my definition of differences between mass murders and mass slaughters.

                          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                          by KVoimakas on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 10:30:52 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  In fact… (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          blueness, coquiero, poco

                          I said mass slaughters with assault weapons… they are definitely NOT shrinking...

                          If your  "resident expert" tells you otherwise he/she is lying…

                          Baby, where I come from...

                          by ThatSinger on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 10:30:58 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  actually you moved the goal posts (11+ / 0-)

                            I said gun homicide and gun accidents are decreasing. Your chart from Rachael Madow (ahem) didn't address that.

                            How big is your personal carbon footprint?

                            by ban nock on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 10:37:13 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, I got specific… nt (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            blueness, coquiero, poco

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 10:40:25 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Wait, so now we can't cite Rachel Maddow (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            shaharazade, Radiowalla, WakeUpNeo

                            On Daily Kos?

                            Okay so we can't talk about gun control on Daily Kos and now we can't cite Rachel Maddow…

                            Does Markos know about this?

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 10:43:08 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  you can cite whomever you'd like, but (5+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            43north, oldpunk, deedogg, PavePusher, ancblu

                            I can also laugh.

                            Psssst Maddow is an opinion show

                            Just in case you might wish to broaden your sources.

                            I mean you could quote Rush Limbaugh too.

                            I like Rachel about the best of the talking head opinion shows, but at the end of the day she's just another talking head opinionator. TV is a pretty bad place to get informed.

                            How big is your personal carbon footprint?

                            by ban nock on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 12:15:17 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  psst... people use facts to support their opinions (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            WakeUpNeo, Red Bean

                            Rachel Maddow is one of the best at that... as in this instance...

                            Equating Rachel Maddow to Rush Limbaugh is so very... well... you know...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 03:28:27 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And, sadly, the topic of firearms... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas, ancblu

                            is one she is woefully uninformed on, and apparently unwilling to become informed on.

                            It's been pointed out repeatedly.

                          •  I love Rachel. I actually sent in my audotapes (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rockhound, ancblu

                            of a Stupak town hall and she used them.

                            I was on TV! (My voice anyway.)

                            I'm not a fan of her firearm stance though. She is woefully misinformed.

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 07:00:31 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Maddow didn't generate the plot. It was sent (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas, deedogg, PavePusher, ancblu

                            to her. Since it confirmed her ideological premise, I doubt she looked at it to closely to see if it passed the sniff test.

                            It doesn't.

                            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                            by Robobagpiper on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 01:50:42 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  How so? (0+ / 0-)

                            The "sniff test" would be the number of mass shootings in recent years, say since the ASWB expired, would it not? Pretty simple arithmetic really...

                            If you dispute the total, you should probably provide something other than a sniff in rebuttal...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 03:30:56 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The sniff test is what the graph purports to (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher, ancblu

                            describe is hopeless complicated by design, so that people - like you - will completely misread it, and wouldn't have the mathematical acumen to realize that it's making an inference the data don't support.

                            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                            by Robobagpiper on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 03:52:35 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It shows a decided uptick in mass slaughters (0+ / 0-)

                            with assault weapons...

                            You dispute that fact? Then please provided some mathematical "acumen" to refute it...

                            The fact is there has been an increase in the number of mass shootings committed with assault weapons since the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire... are you asserting otherwise? Or are you asserting that the increased availability of assault weapons has no correlation to it?

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 04:14:00 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It did no such thing. Nowhere are assault weapons (4+ / 0-)

                            singled out on that plot, other than the time period of the '94 "ban" being shown.

                            Nor does the plot show a uptick in mass shootings. It takes the dates of the 12 mass killings with the highest body counts of the last 40 years, and plots their date against the cumulative deaths of these 12 incidents, up to that point.

                            The number it plots is essentially meaningless.

                            I know what the plot is actually saying defies your understanding. It's supposed to. It's supposed to create the false impression that assault weapons are somehow involved, and that the numbers of killings are skyrocketing. It's designed to deceive. You have been fooled.

                            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                            by Robobagpiper on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:06:03 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Which of the most recent mass shootings did not (0+ / 0-)

                            involve assault weapons of any kind?

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:09:35 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Christ on a cracker. ASSAULT WEAPON DEATHS (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher, ancblu, KVoimakas

                            ARE NOT TABULATED ON THE CHART YOU LINKED.

                            If you can't read the goddamned chart, you are in no position to make claims based on it.

                            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                            by Robobagpiper on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:35:42 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Calm down... I never said they were... (0+ / 0-)

                            subsequent news reports did... therefore, the murders reflected on the chart (which reflected the NUMBER of mass murders) show a decided uptick, do they not?

                            Now stay with me... those same murders reflected on the chart were committed PRIMARILY with assault weapons... this FACT is borne out by the subsequent reporting of the incidents...

                            Unless or until you can provide SOME evidence that those news reports were erroneous, you are certainly in no "position" to tell me what I can and cannot make claims about, considering you've yet to present a SINGLE fact, just an ever-increasing volume of spittle...

                            Seriously, wipe of your monitor...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:50:36 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The chart does not show an uptick (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher, ancblu, KVoimakas

                            The apparent uptick is a consequence of taking a set, picking off its extrema, and charting, in time, the cumulative sum of the extrema.

                            And because of the chart's source, we don't even know if it's the true extrema, or a selected list of notorious mass killings from Wikipedia.

                            You know what that means in real terms? NOTHING. It's statistically meaningless. The chart contains no useful information.

                            Below, I link to a chart derived from the total FBI stats on mass killings (4 or more victims), number of incidents, number of perpetrators, and number of victims total by year, presented and published by a criminologist (not an experimental psychologist who got the data god knows where). There is no recent uptick in any of the variables in that plot, only large year-to-year fluctuations, which is what you get for a type of incident that happens only 0.0064 per 100,000 people per year.

                            So either your chart is completely bogus, or - if as its author contends - the "most deadly mass killings" have recently become deadlier, all the rest would have had to be come less deadly, by the same amount in aggregate, to prevent the total deaths by year from showing an uptick.

                            The probability that the worst of the mass killings have been getting bigger at the same rate as all the rest were getting smaller is very low. Conclusion: your chart is bogus.

                            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                            by Robobagpiper on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:01:34 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  All this gnashing of teeth... (0+ / 0-)

                            not a single piece of verifiable evidence that mass shootings have gone DOWN... not a single verifiable piece of evidence that assault weapons have NOT been more and more often involved in these mass shootings...

                            You're fixated on the chart and unable to acknowledge that you've presented NOTHING but spittle to refute it...

                            Meanwhile, as you quibble over a chart, more and more people are dying...

                            Go, you!

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:09:34 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You based your claim of an uptick on the chart (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher, ancblu, KVoimakas

                            Which doesn't prove what you claim it proves.

                            I presented below, the annual rates of mass killing incidents and deaths, collected by the FBI, and it proves that mean frequency of the incidents and boxcar-averaged death rates have remained CONSTANT for 30 years.

                            During this time, the population has increased by 139%; meaning the per capita death rates and incident frequency have actually decreased by 28% in that time. So yes, I have shown they've gone down.

                            You're the one fixated on your own chart - and yet you don't even understand it.

                            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                            by Robobagpiper on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:15:07 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The chart supports my INITIAL claim... (0+ / 0-)

                            that mass shootings AND killings from mass shootings have gone UP, not down... this is a fact borne out, not just by this chart but by any other metric you care to use (unfortunately, you've yet to choose a metric other than spittle)... you've been unable to refute this fact which is why you've latched onto the chart like a poodle with a soup bone and falsely claimed that I'm saying it supports something else... I did not say that... I've said over and over that contemporaneous accounts OF those mass shootings support the notion that they involved assault weapons, not the chart itself... please stop misrepresenting what I've said and address what I've actually said...

                            I'm still waiting for you to do anything but attack the chart and pretend I claimed it reflects something I did not...

                            So please, provide something, anything to support your apparent assertion that I (and my chart) are wrong and mass shootings have actually gone down... that would be great...

                            Tick tock...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:35:49 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No-one here made any claims but you.... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ancblu

                            and now you are moving the goal posts.

                          •  Wrong again... (0+ / 0-)

                            ban nock made the initial claim:

                            I said gun homicide and gun accidents are decreasing. Your chart from Rachael Madow (ahem) didn't address that.

                            How big is your personal carbon footprint?

                            by ban nock on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 10:37:13 AM PST

                            Ironically, ban nock never bothered to substantiate that claim... no chart, no link, no nothing... just an assertion that NOBODY other than me bothered to challenge.. instead, rather than back up that rather wild assertion, ban nock attacked the chart I posted instead, as if I'd insulted a cherished family member and attempted to make the conversation about the chart rather than his/her unsubstantiated claim...

                            You should try reading the whole thread before making such a proclamation next time... the "Parent" button is your friend...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 08:55:13 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Uh, homicide and accidents related to (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rockhound, ancblu

                            firearms are decreasing.

                            You started talking about mass slaughters/murders.

                            Not the same thing.

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 07:02:08 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I can see that (0+ / 0-)

                            you're right. There's no information about weapons used in the chart. The chart can't be used to show that the number of mass shooting incidents are increasing. It can't be used to show the number of victims are going up. In fact the data you link to shows that the number of incidents and body count have consistently gone up and down in a fairly narrow range since 1980.

                            This is important information. At the same time, the mass murder of people, sometimes students and children, in schools, theaters and houses of worship doesn't require opponents of free access to semiautomatic weapons and ammunition to prove huge body counts or increasing numbers of incidents. The fact of Newtown speaks for itself.

                            One Newtown or one Aurora or one Tuscson or one Virginia Tech or one Columbine a year would be enough of a disturbance to domestic tranquility to justify legislation that might make them less likely. Mass murders in public places unnerve, disturb and terrorize people way beyond the numbers of those directly affected.

                            I don't know if you agree with this or not. I do know you want to keeps things rational. That's sensible. But it also true that emotions can motivate people to do what's necessary and good.

                    •  See Robo's response. (8+ / 0-)

                      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                      by KVoimakas on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 11:52:11 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  The Chart (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      PavePusher, ancblu

                      is bogus.  Do you need me to come up with by own chart, slanting my own info.  It means nothing.

                      Hey! glad to see you. Hope you are doing well.

                      by deedogg on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 03:21:40 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Oh please. Try to understand it yourself (0+ / 0-)

                  before lecturing others to pay attention to it.

          •  Wait... cumulative deaths? (7+ / 0-)

            The author very obviously chose cumulative deaths so you wouldn't notice that the deaths from the first six incidents before the assault rifle ban are almost exactly the same as the six incidents after the ban.

          •  Good God ... you don't even understand your (0+ / 0-)

            own chart.  The data depicted is firearm fatalities in mass or spree killings - not differentiated by weapon type.

            Therefore the chart absolutely does not prove your assertion that "assault weapon" fatalities are NOT shrinking.

            The fact remains, that you choose to ignore, is that firearm fatalities and accidents across the board are falling ... and significantly.

            As a further aside, you should note that the "cumulative" fatalities numbers for these types of incidents remains substantially less than 250  people -- since 1940!

            In contrast, more the more typical form of gun violence -- again not involving any statistically relevant use of "assault weapons" -- involved some 12,000 fatalities last year alone.

            The AWB and the fixation about it is nothing more than a solution in search of a problem.

      •  The chart you link says no such thing (22+ / 0-)

        The chart itself is extremely confusingly constructed, if you're not ready to put on your differential calculus hat.

        First of all, assault weapons are not picked out in the statistics. This charts all deaths in the 12th largest mass killings to date cumulatively. Only a small fraction of these involved assault weapons.

        Secondly, the ban merely limited new sales with certain cosmetic features and newly made >10 capacity magazines. Magazines produced before the ban were still widely available, if more expensive for less common guns (though about the same price for common guns like the Beretta 92 or AR-15). The notion that the repeal of the ban changed any conditions on the ground is, simply, laughable.

        Thirdly, charting extrema is, anyone who's studied populations will know, a boneheaded move. Charting cumulative extrema is statistically bogus.

        Fourthly, the US population has increased 238% in the time period covered by this graph, and at the same time, local population densities have vastly increased. Mass killings require a lot of people in the same place at the same time.

        Fifthly, because it charts the 12th largest mass killings of the present, it produces skewed results. It's a phenomenon similar to "best pop songs ever" charts that are overwhelmingly dominated by hits of the last few years.

        Ultimately, "bullshit" is the kindest thing I can say about the plot itself; and add to this that you haven't even read it right. Anyone with a PhD should be embarrassed to put this plot on their blog; Maddow is letting her ideology get the better of her education.

        The reality is that there are about the same number of mass shootings now as in 1980 (~20 a year for >4 killed), claiming about the same number of fatalities (~150/year). And this is during a period where the US population increased 150%.

        If mass shootings, and deaths from them, were increasing as dramatically as this plot wants you to believe, then why didn't he send Rachel simply a plot of per capita death rate in mass shootings? Because that would disprove the assertion he's trying to make.

        DIS-FUCKING-HONEST. But par for the course for gun control "science".

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 11:28:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site