Concealed Permit Holder Stops Attempted Mass Shooting in Chicago

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Mass Shootings under the Last Five Presidents

Ronald Reagan: 1981-1989 (8 years) 11 mass shootings

Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 5

George H. W. Bush: 1989-1993 (4 years) 12 mass murders

Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 3

Bill Clinton: 1993-2001 (8 years) 23 mass murders

Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 4

George W. Bush: 2001-2009 (8 years) 20 mass murders

Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 5

Barrack H. Obama: 2009-2015 (in 7th year) 162 mass murders

Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 18

http://wearechange.org/why-have-there-been-more-mass-shootings-under-obama-than-the-previous-four-presidents-combined/

But we are only supposed to be concerned about 1 of the 18 mass shootings right?

More to the point IF ccp's have been so successful in lowering the gun murder rate, why the mass shooting explosion?

Perhaps because there is NO correlation?

[lostinblue 1,989]

But we are only supposed to be concerned about 1 of the 18 mass shootings right?

More to the point IF ccp's have been so successful in lowering the gun murder rate, why the mass shooting explosion?

Perhaps because there is NO correlation?

Too many gun free zones

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Mass Shootings under the Last Five Presidents

Ronald Reagan: 1981-1989 (8 years) 11 mass shootings

Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 5

George H. W. Bush: 1989-1993 (4 years) 12 mass murders

Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 3

Bill Clinton: 1993-2001 (8 years) 23 mass murders

Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 4

George W. Bush: 2001-2009 (8 years) 20 mass murders

Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 5

Barrack H. Obama: 2009-2015 (in 7th year) 162 mass murders

Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 18

http://wearechange.org/why-have-there-been-more-mass-shootings-under-obama-than-the-previous-four-presidents-combined/

Did someone just say we should credit Obama. LOL

[Advanced Aardvark 82]

Already said I dont see the point in the numbers game - looking up stats on the internet to prove what you already believe. If you rely on the internet for truth you can make yourself believe anything.

The way some Americans talk about guns makes me think they are still living in the old west, thinking a bear or Indians are going to come over the hill at any moment and kill them. Have a gun just in case, cause you'll really be sorry if you get mugged and get caught with your ####### in your hands

Mmmmm...not entirely unexpected; your data gun is empty.

[Advanced Aardvark 82]

But we are only supposed to be concerned about 1 of the 18 mass shootings right?

More to the point IF ccp's have been so successful in lowering the gun murder rate, why the mass shooting explosion?

Perhaps because there is NO correlation?

Look at where the firearm laws are the most restrictive and where the most mass shooting incidents occurred. Look above...part of the answer is there.

[DavenMaura 62]

Mmmmm...not entirely unexpected; your data gun is empty.

I could pretend to be an expert on the subject by googling random numbers to support what I believe, but what would be the point of that?

Youre kidding yourself if you think your opinion is more valuable because of this

The "Crime Prevention Resource Center" was founded by John Lott of "more guns, less crime" fame. Shocking that the study cited above concluded that concealed carry permits skyrocketing lowered the US gun death murder rate.

I think we should credit the Obama administration for the drop.

Yeah no agenda at all there.

We find it perplexing that there are people who do not realize that a right may be neither granted nor withdrawn by the State. If the Bill of Rights were repealed, the right to keep and bear arms would still exist, since it was to defend that right that the Constitution was established. (See the Declaration of Independence.) Thus the state may destroy me, but it may not rescind my right to self-defense. This all seems pretty clear, but frequently I find people who do not understand it. Jeff Cooper

Do you have to defend yourself a lot then? What do you do for a living?

[Advanced Aardvark 82]

I could pretend to be an expert on the subject by googling random numbers to support what I believe, but what would be the point of that?

Youre kidding yourself if you think your opinion is more valuable because of this

I understand...you do not wish to taint your argument with facts. The theoretical purity of an argument without the impediment of facts is a thing of beauty, so long as you keep it bottled up inside. Once you err, by letting it out and into the sunshine, inquiring minds will want to know the source of your musings. We hear noises; but, do not discern intellect. Please, enlighten us as to the basis of your noises...

[DavenMaura 62]

I understand...you do not wish to taint your argument with facts. The theoretical purity of an argument without the impediment of facts is a thing of beauty, so long as you keep it bottled up inside. Once you err, by letting it out and into the sunshine, inquiring minds will want to know the source of your musings. We hear noises; but, do not discern intellect. Please, enlighten us as to the basis of your noises...

Why insist on trying to get me to play a game I've already told you I'm not interested in playing? Was I not clear or something?

I'm not going to convince you to change your opinion and you're not going to convince me. Playing about on the Internet doesn't make you an expert, just makes you feel better about what you already believe

Accept it. Why be rude about it

Edited December 9, 2015 by DavenMaura

[Advanced Aardvark 82]

Why insist on trying to get me to play a game I've already told you I'm not interested in playing? Was I not clear or something?

I'm not going to convince you to change your opinion and you're not going to convince me. Playing about on the Internet doesn't make you an expert, just makes you feel better about what you already believe

Accept it. Why be rude about it

Ah, you mistake my intent. I make no effort to ask you to alter your opinion.

When someone presents an argument, especially when their conclusions do not seem to reflect reality, I will seek clarification. This affords the opportunity for them to educate me about the basis for their opinion. I relish the opportunity to learn. Sometimes, the response is analogous to, "I believe this because it is what I believe." I tend to discount future commentary by these respondents.

Have a nice day.

[DavenMaura 62]

There's no mistake. You think yourself an expert because you've looked up random statistics on the Web and think it proves what you happen to already believe.

The Internet is not university and unless you collected these numbers yourself you only think you know what you're talking about. This venue is all about opinion.

[B_J 2,752]

Why insist on trying to get me to play a game I've already told you I'm not interested in playing? Was I not clear or something?

I'm not going to convince you to change your opinion and you're not going to convince me. Playing about on the Internet doesn't make you an expert, just makes you feel better about what you already believe

Accept it. Why be rude about it

There's no mistake. You think yourself an expert because you've looked up random statistics on the Web and think it proves what you happen to already believe.

The Internet is not university and unless you collected these numbers yourself you only think you know what you're talking about. This venue is all about opinion.

This is definitely a new tactic. You don't want people to bother posting different opinions but you also don't want them bother researching and posting facts.

How is this discussion supposed to work then? Do we all just read you opinions and admire them from afar?

[Jacque67 7,328]

This is definitely a new tactic. You don't want people to bother posting different opinions but you also don't want them bother researching and posting facts.

How is this discussion supposed to work then? Do we all just read you opinions and admire them from afar?

First point I think you have misinterpreted the poster's intent-statistics can be skewed to fit an agenda, hence are not necessarily "facts".

Second point-I would think this would apply to most people . Doesn't everyone crave to be admired ? Look at the +1 system here;)

[DavenMaura 62]

This is definitely a new tactic. You don't want people to bother posting different opinions but you also don't want them bother researching and posting facts.

How is this discussion supposed to work then? Do we all just read you opinions and admire them from afar?

Point is it's all opinion. All of it. Some people seem to think googling up random stats on a subject they feel strongly about equals fact. Thats my opinion.

The poster doesn't like that and wants to try and shame me and paint me ignorant for not playing his game... Why is that my problem?

[B_J 2,752]

First point I think you have misinterpreted the poster's intent-statistics can be skewed to fit an agenda, hence are not necessarily "facts".

Second point-I would think this would apply to most people . Doesn't everyone crave to be admired ? Look at the +1 system here;)

I would agree with your second point if you had +1'd my post.

Point is it's all opinion. All of it. Some people seem to think googling up random stats on a subject they feel strongly about equals fact. Thats my opinion.

The poster doesn't like that and wants to try and shame me and paint me ignorant for not playing his game... Why is that my problem?

You just described the CHEST forum.

[DavenMaura 62]

Right. So what's the problem?