Sir ... if you start "the one" ... that would be HUGE! I hope to continue it in that hope.
I actually meant our society, but hey, perhaps it could start with a BBS exchange between two people who don't really know one another, but share a common goal of civility between us and for all of us.
The reference I made earlier stemmed from a compilation of mass shootings. Of course, like everything else, DEFINITION of mass shooting is the first place necessary to start ... but even if the definition can be as broad as 4 (not including the shooter) ... this starts to paint a reasonably distinct picture. Snopes is on record as debunking the statement: Mass Shooters are Democrats. The first compilation I saw, Snopes listed as one Ted Nugent made famous, it tried to debunk (and had to say "mostly false" ... of course, what is "mostly false?") is a list which included POTUS assassinations of Lincoln to begin (though clearly, that's somewhat less than 4 in the mass shooting definition)
Here is the
link to their effort (which, by the way, the Mikklesons have been debunked as "not objective" so this is why their declarations are suspect at best, but they DO compile data)
There is a seemingly good compilation of these 90-some odd tragedies by "mother goose"
here which starts in '82 ... I've searched a good while for a direct cross reference of these perpetrators on their political leanings, but no "pigeon-hole" data to yet. However, a perusal of this data doesn't suggest any NRA members populate it, but it DOES reveal known/suspected mental health issues dominate the list. That shouldn't be surprising.
A firearm enthusiast site has this member author which has done this
number crunching ... of hard data and correlated those and those groups basic tendencies.
I think on this very thread, there is this array of data drawn from FBI, CDC ...
===========================================
"
There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed.
The U.S. Population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:
• 65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified.
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – better known as gun violence.
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths.
So technically, “gun violence” is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation.
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)
So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.
This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.
Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.
Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws That is why they are called criminals.
But what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths.
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide).
Now it gets good:
• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital!
• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If the liberal loons and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides ……………. Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns?
It’s pretty simple:
Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.
Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.
So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster:
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed.” We now know what they’re trying to do, rule the defenseless."
==============================================
While the 4 cities listed are clearly dominated by democrats, that doesn't necessarily mean democrats are pulling the trigger ... but certainly have fostered the environment for that very thing.
So ... until I can run-down the mother jones data to include political party membership/affiliation outright ... that claim isn't DEBUNKED by anyone with critical thinking skills.
Thanks again for recognizing I promised to return to this. Perhaps I should have simply avoided responding until I could do what I intended to do.
All The best!
