More food for thought - Guns in America

[Musashi]

http://csmonitor.tumblr.com/image/43492856121

Now this is interesting

[Sawin]

I agree. That was interesting. Lots of valid stats, with little evidence of slant.

[Musashi]

I figured it wouldn't hurt a bit to get more information that we could use in our debate. Which reminds me I need to write to the senators today.

[griebel303]

That is a great chart. Thanks for posting that up. I am going to have to share that. Thanks for posting it up

[merl]

just be warned, CSmonitor has stated anti-gun editorials before.

[HoneyBadger]

Ugh, link is blocked at work. Can anyone post the gist of it?

[Sawin]

Ugh, link is blocked at work. Can anyone post the gist of it?

22019

[HoneyBadger]

Thanks. Good graphic... for the most part. 14 mass shootings and they all used "high capacity" magazines? I guess their definition of a mass shooting is more than 2 people getting shot, and high capacity magazine must include 10 round magazines?

[Sawin]

Thanks. Good graphic... for the most part. 14 mass shootings and they all used "high capacity" magazines? I guess their definition of a mass shooting is more than 2 people getting shot, and high capacity magazine must include 10 round magazines?

Granted they're the same number, the time-frame for shooters using "high capacity" magazines, was not limited to the year 2000 to present. The way I interpret it is, 14 total incidents, EVER, were perpetrated by individuals using "high cap" mags. There have been more than 14 "mass shootings" since the beginning of time. I unfortunately do not see where they define "mass shooting" though...

[HoneyBadger]

It clearly says the "number of mass shootings since 2000" is 14... right above the bit about "high capacity" mags.

[Sawin]

It clearly says the "number of mass shootings since 2000" is 14... right above the bit about "high capacity" mags.

I see that... But according to the line item in question, the qty of shooters who used "high cap" magazines is not qualified by that same period of time, is it not?

[Sawin]

I guess I don't have any reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. That little section seems to be grouped together, so maybe that's the point they're trying to convey that 100% of shooters since 2000 used high cap mags... pfff.

[merl]

I don't see this number on there, anyone have it? "Total number of people killed in mass shootings since 2000 = ?" Would be a wonderful number to compare with something like lightning.

[th3w01f]

Take it for what it's worth given the source but there is some interesting info here - http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map?page=2

Supposedly they're only including events where at least 4 people were killed not including the perp.

[Sawin]

Take it for what it's worth given the source but there is some interesting info here - http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map?page=2

Supposedly they're only including events where at least 4 people were killed not including the perp.

Thanks. I was unsure as to their definition of a "mass shooting". I'm not sure what I'd consider "mass"... as long as it wasn't 2 or 3.