No NYC Subway racist shooter thread ?

[MLD Woody]

7 hours ago, VaporTrail said:

And likewise, legal restrictions don't exist in a vacuum.

The last time this topic came up, you dodged my questions. I bring up a fair argument this time, and you refuse to engage. So let me ask you again. How do you propose enforcement of a law that transitions guns or magazines that tens of millions of people in the country legally own into something that is now illegal? You have hammered on background checks and more restrictions on who can and cannot buy a firearm. New York City has all of that and more. However, the crux of the issue, which you are unwilling to engage on, is that THERE ARE HALF A BILLION GUNS IN THE COUNTRY, NEARLY TWO FOR EVERY CITIZEN. Every time the gun control lobby has a freakout, that number goes up!  There are practical and cultural barriers that the gun control lobby is going to have to overcome to accomplish their goals, and if you can come up with a way to make the country safer without going full Hitler, then I'm all ears. 

Here man, I'm admitting I don't have the answer. I haven't done a ton of research into gun control measures. I'm just coming from the standpoint where it seems pretty clear we have a problem, especially compared to other developed nations. 

Any step towards regulation or reform is going to be considered "full Hitler" by a large portion of this country. So you're right, any cultural change is going to be difficult. I could suggest we start a buy back program, but people will lose their fucking minds. 

It seems like we're just waiting on enough generations of kids to grow up around a mass shooting / school shooting leading them to push regulation when they're older. I fully don't expect anything to change, nothing significant, for a while, due to the cultural issue you pointed out. Maybe as Gen Z grows and Boomers fade, idk. 

And we don't even have to talk about this shooting in particular. There are literally dozens of other examples. 

I just hate the "well what can you do?" mentality. 

 

But you're right, there are guns everywhere. Which was part of my point originally. One state can come up with laws, but if guns are already everywhere then how much does it help?

 

You could have longer waiting periods to buy, more rigorous background checks, more training for licenses, stipulations around renewals, a more comprehensive registered database of firearms, limits on how many can be owned (not sure if that one exists or not). Again, this isn't something I've ever dug into a ton. I just see us shrugging our arms after school shootings while over developed countries don't have this issue. It would suck to just say we're a broken country and leave it at that. With so many other things it seems people need to be personally affected before they care. Hopefully it doesn't take that long. 

 

[Ibleedbrown]

6 hours ago, Gorka said:

Perhaps his point was to show that the absurdity of these "criminal friendly" policies, proves that no demonrat should be in a position to make or change gun laws.

To your third sentence. Are you now implying that there are no solutions? 

Take a stand would ya?

I don’t understand your question or how you came to that conclusion, so l guess the answer is no. Vambo answered the question l posed to him. 

[calfoxwc]

sure is a ton of avoiding the more serious issue - WWIII starting in the Ukraine and the genocide, torture and rape of hundreds of men, women, and children in just one area near Kyiv.

I suppose they feeeeeeellllll guilty for voting for it by voting against a terrific president who kept his promises.

As to the point about "what to do" ........ liberal policies are to blame. The kid who shot up the school - was in a program to keep him from being in juvie jail.

This lunatic was supposed to be in prison. But they let him go.

Right now, we have a couple of hundred thousand illegals just this year ILLEGALLY INVADING our country. Some of them are hard core criminals. They will commit crimes here. Some will join hispanic gangs, if they aren't already members.

They will get illegal guns.

But sure, talk about passing MORE laws that bad, mentally ill violent people will ignore while dems in power do nothing to enforce the laws already on the books.

what a farce.

[Ibleedbrown]

40 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

sure is a ton of avoiding the more serious issue - WWIII starting in the Ukraine and the genocide, torture and rape of hundreds of men, women, and children in just one area near Kyiv.

I suppose they feeeeeeellllll guilty for voting for it by voting against a terrific president who kept his promises.

As to the point about "what to do" ........ liberal policies are to blame. The kid who shot up the school - was in a program to keep him from being in juvie jail.

This lunatic was supposed to be in prison. But they let him go.

Right now, we have a couple of hundred thousand illegals just this year ILLEGALLY INVADING our country. Some of them are hard core criminals. They will commit crimes here. Some will join hispanic gangs, if they aren't already members.

They will get illegal guns.

But sure, talk about passing MORE laws that bad, mentally ill violent people will ignore while dems in power do nothing to enforce the laws already on the books.

what a farce.

See, that wasn’t so bad. Good job Cal. And as promised, no hard time given for your honest input. I would ask that you skip all the complaining and weird windmill talk before giving an answer. That’s some pretty bizarre conversational foreplay, but your actual response is much appreciated once you get to it. 

[calfoxwc]

there he goes again - channeling his inner woodpecker......

[Ibleedbrown]

3 hours ago, calfoxwc said:

there he goes again - channeling his inner woodpecker......

Aaaand back to complaining, haha. Happy Easter man. Photo is from 1941.

[calfoxwc]

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2022/04/17/watch-blm-marcher-pulls-gun-on-motorist-during-michigan-protest-after-police-shooting-n551615

[VaporTrail]

On 4/16/2022 at 8:21 AM, Ibleedbrown said:

While not directed at me l may have an answer, and that’s simply some form of grandfather clauses for preexisting guns/magazines. Treat it similar to how ivory was handled with one set of rules governing how it can be bought and sold from the 1970s to 2016, then another set of rules after that. It’s still allowed to be owned, but how it changes hands gets regulated.

There may be a precedent for this already. Didn’t some states make it illegal to own bump stock after an incident a few years ago? How did they handle preexisting pieces?

For the record l’m just trying to answer your hypothetical question and not advocating for anything here. 

That's probably the way it'd have to go, but you realistically wouldn't see any changes for generations, if at all. It's total bullshit that in 1980 you could buy an Uzi, but in order to buy one today, you have to pay Uncle Sam a 5-figure license fee. 

On 4/16/2022 at 1:26 PM, MLD Woody said:

Here man, I'm admitting I don't have the answer. I haven't done a ton of research into gun control measures. I'm just coming from the standpoint where it seems pretty clear we have a problem, especially compared to other developed nations. 

Any step towards regulation or reform is going to be considered "full Hitler" by a large portion of this country. So you're right, any cultural change is going to be difficult. I could suggest we start a buy back program, but people will lose their fucking minds. 

It seems like we're just waiting on enough generations of kids to grow up around a mass shooting / school shooting leading them to push regulation when they're older. I fully don't expect anything to change, nothing significant, for a while, due to the cultural issue you pointed out. Maybe as Gen Z grows and Boomers fade, idk. 

And we don't even have to talk about this shooting in particular. There are literally dozens of other examples. 

I just hate the "well what can you do?" mentality. 

 

But you're right, there are guns everywhere. Which was part of my point originally. One state can come up with laws, but if guns are already everywhere then how much does it help?

 

You could have longer waiting periods to buy, more rigorous background checks, more training for licenses, stipulations around renewals, a more comprehensive registered database of firearms, limits on how many can be owned (not sure if that one exists or not). Again, this isn't something I've ever dug into a ton. I just see us shrugging our arms after school shootings while over developed countries don't have this issue. It would suck to just say we're a broken country and leave it at that. With so many other things it seems people need to be personally affected before they care. Hopefully it doesn't take that long. 

Cultural issues are more than just generational. Mass shootings are largely a problem for urban and suburban people. Gun crime is also an issue in rural America, but hard to have a mass shooting when the population is spread so thin and everyone else is packing (that video of the Texas church shooting comes to mind, where a bystander downs the gunner after his first victim, and then you see 11 or 12 other churchgoers draw their weapons). 

I'm personally all on board with more training. One of the biggest complaints I've heard from gun store workers is that a bunch of the people coming in buying guns clearly have no idea what they're doing with them and don't bother with training. I don't have a source for this, but I would bet that the majority of mass shooters were not people with the kind of gun training you're talking about. And I can't see how a few hours more of gun safety would prevent these people from going off the handle.

Hard pass on the registered databases and limits on how many can be owned. Don't need more big brother in this world. Longer waiting times could potentially reduce crimes of passion, but mass shootings tend to be premeditated, and I don't see how it would prevent these from happening. 

As I've said before, I hate how the gun control community latches onto mass shooting incidents to push their agenda. Mass shootings are scary and terrifying, but they're also statistical outliers. You want to reduce the vast majority of gun crime? Raise the standard of living for urban and rural communities. You want to reduce mass shootings? Make more outreach to ostracized, depressed individuals who don't have a sense of community. Giving up liberties for the sake of safety didn't work out so well for us after 9/11. What makes you think it would be different in this case?

[Westside Steve]

7 minutes ago, VaporTrail said:

That's probably the way it'd have to go, but you realistically wouldn't see any changes for generations, if at all. It's total bullshit that in 1980 you could buy an Uzi, but in order to buy one today, you have to pay Uncle Sam a 5-figure license fee. 

Cultural issues are more than just generational. Mass shootings are largely a problem for urban and suburban people. Gun crime is also an issue in rural America, but hard to have a mass shooting when the population is spread so thin and everyone else is packing (that video of the Texas church shooting comes to mind, where a bystander downs the gunner after his first victim, and then you see 11 or 12 other churchgoers draw their weapons). 

I'm personally all on board with more training. One of the biggest complaints I've heard from gun store workers is that a bunch of the people coming in buying guns clearly have no idea what they're doing with them and don't bother with training. I don't have a source for this, but I would bet that the majority of mass shooters were not people with the kind of gun training you're talking about. And I can't see how a few hours more of gun safety would prevent these people from going off the handle.

Hard pass on the registered databases and limits on how many can be owned. Don't need more big brother in this world. Longer waiting times could potentially reduce crimes of passion, but mass shootings tend to be premeditated, and I don't see how it would prevent these from happening. 

As I've said before, I hate how the gun control community latches onto mass shooting incidents to push their agenda. Mass shootings are scary and terrifying, but they're also statistical outliers. You want to reduce the vast majority of gun crime? Raise the standard of living for urban and rural communities. You want to reduce mass shootings? Make more outreach to ostracized, depressed individuals who don't have a sense of community. Giving up liberties for the sake of safety didn't work out so well for us after 9/11. What makes you think it would be different in this case?

On the other hand how many people are killed by Uzis every year?

By the way 133 people were killed in mass shootings in 2021 unless I'm mistaken. That's the only 33 more then drowned in bathtubs. Just to get a grip on focus.

WSS

 

 

[MLD Woody]

41 minutes ago, VaporTrail said:

That's probably the way it'd have to go, but you realistically wouldn't see any changes for generations, if at all. It's total bullshit that in 1980 you could buy an Uzi, but in order to buy one today, you have to pay Uncle Sam a 5-figure license fee. 

Cultural issues are more than just generational. Mass shootings are largely a problem for urban and suburban people. Gun crime is also an issue in rural America, but hard to have a mass shooting when the population is spread so thin and everyone else is packing (that video of the Texas church shooting comes to mind, where a bystander downs the gunner after his first victim, and then you see 11 or 12 other churchgoers draw their weapons). 

I'm personally all on board with more training. One of the biggest complaints I've heard from gun store workers is that a bunch of the people coming in buying guns clearly have no idea what they're doing with them and don't bother with training. I don't have a source for this, but I would bet that the majority of mass shooters were not people with the kind of gun training you're talking about. And I can't see how a few hours more of gun safety would prevent these people from going off the handle.

Hard pass on the registered databases and limits on how many can be owned. Don't need more big brother in this world. Longer waiting times could potentially reduce crimes of passion, but mass shootings tend to be premeditated, and I don't see how it would prevent these from happening. 

As I've said before, I hate how the gun control community latches onto mass shooting incidents to push their agenda. Mass shootings are scary and terrifying, but they're also statistical outliers. You want to reduce the vast majority of gun crime? Raise the standard of living for urban and rural communities. You want to reduce mass shootings? Make more outreach to ostracized, depressed individuals who don't have a sense of community. Giving up liberties for the sake of safety didn't work out so well for us after 9/11. What makes you think it would be different in this case?

"Latches onto"... I mean, they're happening all of the time (covid lockdowns excluded). I hate how we have a portion of the country just shrugging their shoulders over mass shootings like it is some necessary evil. Again, a problem pretty much exclusive to us. How often do they need to continue to happen to not be statistical outliers? 

Yes, it absolutely is cultural. Yes, it affects certain groups more than others. Yes, it'll take more than one generation. I just hope we don't become numb to it. Well, any more numb than we already are. 

I agree with some of your later points. A lot of crime is a consequence of the socioeconomic position individuals are put in. We jail more than anyone already. We're adding more and more cops. That's not doing anything. Maybe we take some money from our incredibly bloated and inefficient defense budget and put it into our own citizens. Though with this Russia situation I'm sure that budget is just going to unfortunately increase. 

And more mental health support and awareness? All good with me. Again, investing back in our citizens, infrastructure, support programs, etc...

9/11 was legitimately a one off. There's no way you could put 9/11 and mass shootings in the same level of statistical insignificance. No way. 

Our "liberties" regarding guns seem to be getting more and more out there. If those keep expanding, being pushed by the NRA and the like, than any love back to previous levels will be painted as an "attack on our liberties". Which will then be pumped up to sell guns and make money.

[DieHardBrownsFan1]

33 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

"Latches onto"... I mean, they're happening all of the time (covid lockdowns excluded). I hate how we have a portion of the country just shrugging their shoulders over mass shootings like it is some necessary evil. Again, a problem pretty much exclusive to us. How often do they need to continue to happen to not be statistical outliers? 

Yes, it absolutely is cultural. Yes, it affects certain groups more than others. Yes, it'll take more than one generation. I just hope we don't become numb to it. Well, any more numb than we already are. 

I agree with some of your later points. A lot of crime is a consequence of the socioeconomic position individuals are put in. We jail more than anyone already. We're adding more and more cops. That's not doing anything. Maybe we take some money from our incredibly bloated and inefficient defense budget and put it into our own citizens. Though with this Russia situation I'm sure that budget is just going to unfortunately increase. 

And more mental health support and awareness? All good with me. Again, investing back in our citizens, infrastructure, support programs, etc...

9/11 was legitimately a one off. There's no way you could put 9/11 and mass shootings in the same level of statistical insignificance. No way. 

Our "liberties" regarding guns seem to be getting more and more out there. If those keep expanding, being pushed by the NRA and the like, than any love back to previous levels will be painted as an "attack on our liberties". Which will then be pumped up to sell guns and make money.

You need some pussy........

[Vambo]

2 hours ago, DieHardBrownsFan1 said:

You need some pussy........

So he needs herself...

[Vambo]

4 hours ago, VaporTrail said:

That's probably the way it'd have to go, but you realistically wouldn't see any changes for generations, if at all. It's total bullshit that in 1980 you could buy an Uzi, but in order to buy one today, you have to pay Uncle Sam a 5-figure license fee. 

Cultural issues are more than just generational. Mass shootings are largely a problem for urban and suburban people. Gun crime is also an issue in rural America, but hard to have a mass shooting when the population is spread so thin and everyone else is packing (that video of the Texas church shooting comes to mind, where a bystander downs the gunner after his first victim, and then you see 11 or 12 other churchgoers draw their weapons). 

I'm personally all on board with more training. One of the biggest complaints I've heard from gun store workers is that a bunch of the people coming in buying guns clearly have no idea what they're doing with them and don't bother with training. I don't have a source for this, but I would bet that the majority of mass shooters were not people with the kind of gun training you're talking about. And I can't see how a few hours more of gun safety would prevent these people from going off the handle.

Hard pass on the registered databases and limits on how many can be owned. Don't need more big brother in this world. Longer waiting times could potentially reduce crimes of passion, but mass shootings tend to be premeditated, and I don't see how it would prevent these from happening. 

As I've said before, I hate how the gun control community latches onto mass shooting incidents to push their agenda. Mass shootings are scary and terrifying, but they're also statistical outliers. You want to reduce the vast majority of gun crime? Raise the standard of living for urban and rural communities. You want to reduce mass shootings? Make more outreach to ostracized, depressed individuals who don't have a sense of community. Giving up liberties for the sake of safety didn't work out so well for us after 9/11. What makes you think it would be different in this case?

THE FINE PRINT

Suspect in mall shooting that left 14 people injured could soon return to work under bond conditions

[Vambo]

3 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

"Latches onto"... I mean, they're happening all of the time (covid lockdowns excluded). I hate how we have a portion of the country just shrugging their shoulders over mass shootings like it is some necessary evil. Again, a problem pretty much exclusive to us. How often do they need to continue to happen to not be statistical outliers? 

Yes, it absolutely is cultural. Yes, it affects certain groups more than others. Yes, it'll take more than one generation. I just hope we don't become numb to it. Well, any more numb than we already are. 

I agree with some of your later points. A lot of crime is a consequence of the socioeconomic position individuals are put in. We jail more than anyone already. We're adding more and more cops. That's not doing anything. Maybe we take some money from our incredibly bloated and inefficient defense budget and put it into our own citizens. Though with this Russia situation I'm sure that budget is just going to unfortunately increase. 

And more mental health support and awareness? All good with me. Again, investing back in our citizens, infrastructure, support programs, etc...

9/11 was legitimately a one off. There's no way you could put 9/11 and mass shootings in the same level of statistical insignificance. No way. 

Our "liberties" regarding guns seem to be getting more and more out there. If those keep expanding, being pushed by the NRA and the like, than any love back to previous levels will be painted as an "attack on our liberties". Which will then be pumped up to sell guns and make money.

Media

'MAJOR MISTAKES': Liberal city mayor admits progressive politics have contributed to rising crime

[Vambo]

U.S.

Illegal immigrant arrested on murder charges while trying to flee US

[calfoxwc]

1 hour ago, Vambo said:

So he needs herself...

[calfoxwc]

and.... I don't know of ANYONE, ever in my life, that "shrugs their shoulders" about shootings.

   Most folks with guns cringe every time this garbage happens.

but just because it would make the left FEEL great about themselves.... doesn't mean that doing "something" is any kind of answer.

Yes, as Vapor said - I'm all in on more training.

When I have taught friends how to shoot, I always explain that anytime you have a gun, the whole world of responsibility is on your shoulders. and basic rules of conduct when having a gun in your hands. Like teaching them to ride an ATV - I explain about safety and responsibility until they are nearly blue in the face.

   Too many people are unable to understand how to constructively solve problems. My opinion - they tend to be liberals - but not necessarily so.

   The big cities tend to have this shooting problem in the most serious degrees.

democrat/progressive policies abound. Defunding the police. Letting violent criminals back out onto the streets. The LA shooter was in prison - they released him. I guess it's all about endearing the democrats to the city minority population. Stopping the police from making arrests for most more minor crimes. They are free to act out.

    The left wants to make MORE laws that the mentally ill, totally corrupt and violent people never obey.

So, what is the point? Must be to politicize the issue and pizz off those gun owners.

   Obviously, that will never solve anything.

A lot of the same liberals, my opinion, want gun control over the good guys in the over couple hundred of million? gun owners, but they are quiet about repeating violent criminals coming across our border by the thousands.

   They won't talk about gangs. Hispanic gangs. Crime by illegals.

ENFORCE THE LAWS on the books. the dems are doing the opposite.

  Best way to solve the violent crime problem is start voting republican and stop "defund.....", criminal releases, etc etc etc in the big cities.

   Giuliani did it in NYC. It WORKED GREAT. 

The many "who is gonna take care of all my babies?" crowd, etc etc etc etc vote democrat in the cities for free stuff, federal assistance programs, free services, welfare..... and they vote for NO accountability and NO responsibility - it's become a huge subculture in our big cities.

   The left always? wants to lump everybody into their arguments.

Go after all Americans with guns because a few mentally ill/ violent people commit crimes with guns.

Not a solution.

"All white people are racists" . I mean, even the POPE is saying it.

"All veterans are a possible danger, all republicans, all gun owners, all parents who disagree with crt, all Pres Trump/America first voters, etc etc.

   That will never solve any problem, but the left seems to know that and not care.

  Right now, the left is creating a crisis of giant floods of unvetted illegals at our border. Hundreds of thousands. Right now, the dems/progressives/marxists in big cities are deliberately fostering violence, street riots, open breaking and entering and mass theft, released hard core criminals right and left, etc etc.

   More laws to solve anything won't work when the left refuses to enforce the laws on the books now.

  It's all corrupt political theater.

[VaporTrail]

5 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

9/11 was legitimately a one off. There's no way you could put 9/11 and mass shootings in the same level of statistical insignificance. No way. 

It was actually the second time the towers were targeted by a terrorist attack. Regardless, if you go off of wikipedia's data, the number of Americans killed in mass shootings since the year 2000 is currently 1154. This number seems to exclude most drug and gang related mass killings. So, while you're right on the frequency, the total deaths from mass shootings since the towers fell is actually 1/3 the number of deaths from 9/11. I maintain that they are appropriate comparisons.

[calfoxwc]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/queens-mom-orsolya-gaal-spotted-alive-backyard-before-body-found

[calfoxwc]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/south-carolina-mall-shooting-suspects-bond-set-at-25000-can-go-to-work-with-ankle-monitor

[calfoxwc]

Why is it that most folks who want more gun control way past what we already have......

fully support illegal immigration, ignore crime by criminal illegals, and want to legalize drugs?

https://www.foxnews.com/us/oregon-sheriff-warns-of-surging-violent-crime-in-open-letter-without-action-we-can-expect-worse-to-come

[MLD Woody]

2 hours ago, VaporTrail said:

It was actually the second time the towers were targeted by a terrorist attack. Regardless, if you go off of wikipedia's data, the number of Americans killed in mass shootings since the year 2000 is currently 1154. This number seems to exclude most drug and gang related mass killings. So, while you're right on the frequency, the total deaths from mass shootings since the towers fell is actually 1/3 the number of deaths from 9/11. I maintain that they are appropriate comparisons.

Not appropriate in terms of doing a statistical analysis though or when bringing up the term statistical significance. Especially since, in this case, we should be talking about frequency of instances and not the total number of deaths. The goal would be to reduce the frequency and the total number of deaths can be greatly reliant on luck (or bad luck). You could take a mean of means across each year as well, showing greater consistency and more significance in the number of mass shootings, even mass shooting deaths, than just 9/11. The variation on the terrorist attack data set, year over year, would be huge. One of these things is happening multiple times every year and one has happened once in the last 20 years (damn it was over 20 years ago now, crazy). 

 

But I have a feeling we're at the point where we're just going to go around in circles. Whether it is this mass shooting, the next mass shooting, or not tied to a mass shooting, I am for more regulations around gun ownership and anything that helps us dial back our uniquely American "guns guns guns" culture, as I feel it will help address this also uniquely American problem. 

And I completely agree with you that actual investment to correct the conditions that lead to crime, gang violence, etc. would be effective and is needed to help address the root cause of the problem. Same regarding mental health. But most of our country can't seem to give anything the time of day that doesn't affect them directly, so these people will continue to be seen as second class and the cause of this own issues, so nothing will happen. But hey, at least Lockheed Martin will get some shiny new contracts... That way we can fight the next 10 countries below us at once or something...

[JAFBF]

[MLD Woody]

53 minutes ago, JAFBF said:

... And you believe this?

[Westside Steve]

1 hour ago, JAFBF said:

"Man opened fire at South Carolina mall in self-defense, his lawyer says" https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/suspect-south-carolina-mall-shooting-released-house-arrest-judge-sets-rcna24751

Didn't read it that's just what popped up from Mass shooter $25,000 Bond

Looks like it might be a different case but...

[JAFBF]

13 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

"Man opened fire at South Carolina mall in self-defense, his lawyer says" https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/suspect-south-carolina-mall-shooting-released-house-arrest-judge-sets-rcna24751

Didn't read it that's just what popped up from Mass shooter $25,000 Bond

Looks like it might be a different case but...

Nailed it.

 

 

13 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

... And you believe this?

Not the only case of this happening, the Texas School Shooter out on Bail (same night ?) as well as another one or two.

 

Point was, why are these (Jan 6) people still in Jail, uncharged, with no Bail available, but yet it's totally fine to let mass murderers out ?

 

No, it's not the exact case on topic, but not worth another thread, and it is on topic to mass shootings.

 

[calfoxwc]

https://redstate.com/jeffc/2022/04/18/progressives-shocked-to-find-gun-buybacks-dont-decrease-gun-crime-n552020

[VaporTrail]

On 4/18/2022 at 12:12 AM, MLD Woody said:

Not appropriate in terms of doing a statistical analysis though or when bringing up the term statistical significance. Especially since, in this case, we should be talking about frequency of instances and not the total number of deaths. The goal would be to reduce the frequency and the total number of deaths can be greatly reliant on luck (or bad luck). You could take a mean of means across each year as well, showing greater consistency and more significance in the number of mass shootings, even mass shooting deaths, than just 9/11. The variation on the terrorist attack data set, year over year, would be huge. One of these things is happening multiple times every year and one has happened once in the last 20 years (damn it was over 20 years ago now, crazy). 

My math is shitty, that's a fair argument. Here is the data of someone who did it properly. 

So as shitty as my statistical techniques were, the numbers I pulled out of my ass weren't far off. Dying from a mass shooting is on the same order of magnitude as dying at the hands of a foreign terrorist. We don't need to restrict our Bill of Rights any further for something that is a statistical rarity. Of note, this number for mass shootings appears to include drug and gang related killings. It is likely inflated. 

Source and dataset: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1px5OKruddVfj1FEAJAV1bS3-mUv2c1P8BgVx8KMAZ80/edit

Mass shooting dataset: https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shootings/2014