#paratrooperslife

[noctomania]

Mass Shootings and White Guys

Well @paratrooperslife since your fingers seem a bit broken I thought I’d go ahead and take time out of my life to provide you with resources you seemed unable to find in relation to this post of mine. I had to wait until i got off work because I wanted to go ahead and make this an entire post of its own which is hard to do on mobile.

Lucky you.

You kept saying things to the effect of: “ The standard was set by leftists to define Mass Shootings as any Shooting with 4 or more victims.  So that includes a lot of Gang Violence.  As does the majority of gun homicide. “

First of all, there is no standard.

Your source for that was Everytown and Everytown Research. They are not who can set a standard for what is considered a “mass shooting” and their scope for gun violence is broad, so of course they will include data from any and all gun violence. And Everytown is very transparent about their methodology:

“ The objective of Everytown’s mass shooting database is to track, investigate, and analyze the nature of multi-victim shootings in the U.S. To that end, this annual report includes mass shooting incidents that occur in both public and private spaces, have any number of shooters, and result from a myriad of motives (including but not limited to random acts of violence, domestic or family violence, incidents connected to terrorist activity, and group violence) “

Same for GVA, Gun Violence Archive. 

“GVA is not, by design an advocacy group. The mission of GVA is to document incidents of gun violence and gun crime nationally to provide independent, verified data to those who need to use it in their research, advocacy or writing.“

They are also transparent in their inclusion of gang/drug related violence in their database. For example, when you select “view incident” you can read details of the report like this one that explicitly says under characteristics “gang involvement”.

In fact there is no one definition for what is considered a “mass shooting”.

Even Congress has their own definition which is also very broad and likely one of the lowest standards. I reckon that was intentional as the bill was made in order to allow them better access to provide support to local authorities in response to gun violence.

You also said “ Looking at Actual statistics by the FBI disproves Everytown's claims.“ Well, I never referenced Everytown, that was you. But let’s play along, shall we? What does the FBI have to say about these shootings?

The FBI defines the particular type of shooters I was talking about as “active shooters”. In studies of these particular cases they do not include gang/drug violence:

"Specifically, shootings that resulted from gang and drug violence - pervasive, long-tracked, criminal acts that could also affect the public - were not included in this study. In addition, other gun-related shootings were not included when those incidents appreared generally not to have put others in peril (e.g. the accidental discharge ofa firearm ina  school building or a person who chose to publicly commit suicide in a parking lot)." pg 5,

"The methodology articulated in the 2000-2013 study was applied to the 2018 incidents to ensure consistency. Excluded from this report are gang- and drug-related shootings and gun-related incidents that appeared not to have put other people in peril" pg 2).

This is in part because drug/gang related shootings are more “trackable” if you will in that authorities are able to track gang/drug activity much moreso than they could track something random as an active shooter. FBI does not seem to list any race in their studies of these shootings, I imagine because there may be murky legal waters for them that they want to steer clear of and is not a focus of theirs.

A commonly cited source has been Mother Jones on-going study  of 1986-2019 which, also, does not include gang/drug shootings.

“ We exclude shootings stemming from more conventionally motivated crimes such as armed robbery or gang violence. “

Chronic miscategorization will result in false conclusions. It's like if you were a weather analyst reviewing natural disasters and you categorized tornadoes with hurricanes, two notably and categorically different storm systems, based on the fact they both include high winds.

Stats you would gleam from that methodology would lead you to false conclusions about several things such as location and frequency of these storms, and would also confuse information regarding predictability. Hurricanes and more foreseeable than tornadoes, so to assume they could be treated equally is faulty methodology that would lead to exponentially faulty conclusions.

That is what happens when you try to categorize gang/drug-related violence in with these other mass shootings. Drug/gang related is much easier to track and professionals could even likely predict what areas are more likely inclined to experience shootings related to gang/drug violence. Where as the mass shootings not related to other crimes are not predictable in the same way if at all.

Back to MJ’s study, they have listed race where it was included in the sources they found (news reports primarily) and you can sort the list yourself on the document. The numbers come out as such. Out of 116 cases listed in their particular study, they found:

66 White

18 Black

10 Latino

8 Asian

3 Native

and 10 uncategorized.

Even if you added those last 10 to any other of the identities it would not come close to the tally for whites. Over half of the cases are white.

Another source researching this topic is Grant Duwe, who does actually contest Mother Jones’ report claiming their numbers are actually lower than what he’s come up with in his research. In an interview with Politifact he states:

"There have been at least 184 mass public shootings in the U.S. since 1900, including the Las Vegas attack," Duwe said. "Among these mass public shooters, non-Hispanic whites make up 63 percent, which is close to what we see for the U.S. population in general. So, the Mother Jones data actually underreport the extent to which whites are involved as mass public shooters."

“ Duwe defines "mass public shooting" as an incident that occurs in the absence of other criminal activity, in which a gun was used to kill four or more victims at a public location within a 24-hour period. “ So clearly Duwe also excludes gang/drug shootings from his research. I’m keen to his definition when honing in on this particular phenomenon.

Now listen.

I’m not saying this as a RA RA LETS GIT THEM WHITE BOYS AND THEIR BOOMBOOM STICKS. I’m saying this because turning a blind eye to significant trends in data is turning a blind eye to an important factor to take into account when coming to conclusions or seeking solutions. I’ve studied research analysis myself and written a research proposal (for practice, didn’t get to carry out the research) in graduate school, so I’m not talking out of my other end here. This is quantitative research.

You said: “ I'm trying to get you to approach this issue from a point of fact and reason. “

These are the facts. This is the research. These are the sources. It’s all at your finger tips. Just gotta read it yourself.

I brought up Stochastic Terrorism, which you shrugged off because I linked wiki. Just to note, there is this real nifty part of wiki at the very bottom labeled “References” where you can take your little pointer and clicky on the references, such as this one! WOW!

Regardless, here is another link: Stochastic Terrorism

“Terrorism experts, security analysts, and political observers have been increasingly using the term stochastic terrorism in the late 2010s, especially in terms of how rhetoric from political and religious leaders inspires random extremists, typically young men considered to be radicalized by ISIS or white supremacist groups.“

In any case, even if cats were the most common active shooter, I would still hold to the sentiment of my original post:

Can we control the regulation, distribution, and banning of guns?: Yes

“ Do you want to stay ignorant? “ you asked, to which i reply

I’ve never been, how’s the weather there?

[ahundredhundredheartbeats]

paratrooperslife replied to your photo

Everyone, regardless of race, ethnicity, color, religion, class, sexuality, gender, etc has a right to be armed to defend themselves against harm and tyranny

shut the fuck up bootlicker

[jtem]

So tell me:  What answer gets you into the care of a mental health professional? And is it the same one that creates or evaporates the screening? 

@paratrooperslife

[whoneedssexed]

paratrooperslife replied to your post “As an Australian, is there anything I can do to help America get gun...”

Nope

We get it dude, you’re subscribed to licking the military industrial complex’s bleached starfish. 

[saltyfilmmajor]

paratrooperslife replied to your photoset “It’s all well and good to offer thoughts and prayers, but sometimes...”

Those who would trade liberty for safety deserve neither and will lose both...

Can’t Believe My Most Controversial post is something with 4 notes kHDKSGG. 

This Colonel Jessup Mother fucker over here trying to sound all deep and shit on a gif post with Colbert in it. 

IM DYING (not just from the gun violence) 

[schweizerqualitaet]

@paratrooperslife

enjoy the Sola, a Swiss pistol using a side toggle-lock and shooting .357 Magnum (even if apparently the magazine could only accomodate .38 WC)

[aridara]

So, let’s look at some of the gun fetishists who responded to my post. Most of them hide in the notes or decided to privately message me in the chat.

Paratrooperslife is actively against any law that doesn’t allow them to Do Whatever The Fuck They Want. Guns, alcohol, drugs, explosives... it doesn’t matter: if the law puts ANY limitation on what Para wants to do, or even if it just inconveniences them, then Para wants to abolish the law and any related government agency. It has gotten to the point that they want to abolish the government because they - as a private citizen - aren’t allowed to just acquire naval artillery and fire it whenever they want.

Super—naut has absolutely no idea what my claim is; but boy, they spent a lot of time and posts trying to disprove it. End result: they managed to repeatedly prove the claim that I actually made, while at the same time me they accused me of making claims that I never made. My guess is that they just saw me talking about gun laws and they went into “rant mode”. Also, they’re stuck 200 years in the past.

318-420-47 doesn’t get why I made this post even after I repeatedly pointed it out. They went into a massive conspiracy theory that I, by stating a simple truth, am out to destroy America. Now they’re breaking down, accidentally slipping into different languages while they write.

Finally, there’s one guy talking with me in the chat. Claims that laws don’t stop people from committing crimes, therefore we should get rid of laws.

And no, I’m not trying to make these gun fetishists look bad or irrational. They do that themselves.

I'm starting to think that, when gun fetishists say "The 2nd amendment says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed", what they actually mean is: "...And therefore, any limitation or inconvenience whatsoever on bearing firearms is bad".

Like, I've seen at least one gun fetishist complain because they were allowed to carry a concealed and loaded firearm inside their vehicles... but, if it was a rifle or a shotgun, they were obligated to keep the chamber empty. Like, even that was too much, for them.

[noctomania]

Analyzing Background Checks on Gun Purchases

“You are an idiot.  Online sales must be sent to an FFL for transfer… It’s not mailed to your house.” 

Online sales could include private sales, which does not require FFL - just communication and coordination between two parties to meet up and exchange that special “collectors item”. As you can see here, “Private Gun Sale Laws by State“ not only do many states (31/51) not require background checks for private sales, but also that:

“Federally licensed firearms dealers are required by federal law to conduct background checks on prospective buyers, but private (unlicensed) sellers are not.“

Here is also a graphic to make a clearer picture of how pervasive loopholes of this type are.

“Straw Purchases are already illegall.[sic]” 

And they need to be enforced as such.

Perhaps supplemental legislation will be necessary to ensure FFLs aren’t fudging on this as much as they have been. The NYC investigation also showed a pervasive and even open willingness among FFLs to sell through straws. They provide suggestions to better enforce this.

It also should be noted that prosecution of straw purchases is “extremely rare “ because prosecutors are challenged in building their cases

“ Prosecutors’ decisions to bring charges against law violators are going to be influenced by the magnitude of the penalty or the ease of getting a conviction “

When state laws or other court decisions challenge their ability to foresee a conviction, prosecutors are less inclined to bother. Not a factor of our judicial system that i’m pleased with, but a reality nonetheless.

“ And there are already background checks.   Your “ universal background checks” is a fancy way of saying “a  federal gun registry”, because if you bought a gun you’d know background checks are done for everyone.  Even at gun shows (personal experience). “

Background checks are required for FFL. Universal background checks means universal as in all encompassing, as in closing the gun show loopholes that can easily be taken advantage of through private sales.

Even the New York City gun show investigation straight up said

“ The  gun  show  loophole  provides  criminals  and other  prohibited  purchasers  easy  access  to  guns  by allowing them to sidestep background checks.  The best way to stop these illegal sales is to require background checks for all sales at gun shows. “

Just because you personally have not sought out an unlicensed seller doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Congrats on being supposedly honest, but unfortunately the loophole exists and taken advantage of.

Regarding a “registry”, law already obligates NICS to purge any and all identifying information within 24 hrs of notice to FFL ( 25.9    Retention  and  destruction  of  records in the system. b.1.III.; TITLE 28 CFR CHAPTER I PART 25 – DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS ), except for instances where the person was denied - meaning they found in that person’s criminal record across several agencies reason to believe the transaction should not be completed. Reminder: there are instances where this process ends up taking too long and due to the Brady Law, after a few days the transfer can be completed. In these cases, and in the event NICS has found reason to deny the transfer but the transfer is confirmed as being already processed by the FFL on a 4473, ATF then have to go through a process of retrieval of the firearm which inevitably costs more money. I’m unsure of what the retrieval rate of success may be, though I’m hoping it’s high otherwise that is another failure of the current system to be addressed.

On top of all this, I think also always requiring fingerprinting in instances of appeals for initial denials to gun sales would be a potential preventative as well. Currently it’s not a requirement, but mostly provided as a means to potentially expedite their appeal process. This would require anyone who appeals a denial to have to visit a police station in order to have their prints properly rolled or electronically scanned where the officer who provides the service also provides a certification number to prove the fingerprinting is legit.

Other notable resources:

New York Crime Gun Analysis, focus is heavily on trafficking because due to NY taking on stronger gun laws, they have seen an influx of crime guns coming from out of state. Because there is no federal law against gun trafficking, this has become a pervasive issue. It even effects Mexico through southern states gun shows.

Chicago is an example of why tracing trafficked guns is hindered by legislation that interferes with tracing a gun’s ownership history, and how loosened laws in surrounding states can make any specific state’s laws that much more fragile when there is no federal back up.

Illinois also provides another example of shortcoming in some state legislation

Failure  to  conduct  a  background  check  through  the  verification  system  is  a  criminal  penalty,  but  only  for  FFL  dealers  and  gun  show  vendors.

Private  sellers  are  exempt from any criminal penalty for failure to verify that a potential buyer’s FOID card is valid before transferring a firearm. Illinois law merely provides what amounts to an incentive for a private seller verifying a potential buyer’s FOID  validity,  granting  civil  immunity  to  a  person  who does take the step to call in a potential gun buyer’s FOID to  the  State  Police. The  law  should  instead  reflect  the  importance of ensuring that a gun buyer in a private sale can in fact legally purchase and possess the firearm, and have the appropriate consequence to deter and enforce against illegal transfers on the secondary market.

Other things to consider that I’m too tired to research right now:

While law initially bans ex-cons from purchasing firearms, there are ways to have that right restored

Improved required accountability and audits of FFLs, their places of business, and their inventory could better address firearms that have been stolen

I’ve not looked nearly enough into inheritance of guns and what the cross-section of that looks like for the nation.

TL;DR

Some reasons background checks need to be made universal and other loopholes legislation needs to address including but not limited to:

private sellers are not federally held accountable and are warranted a lot of leeway to circumvent background checks

there isn’t enough enforcement of current federal and state laws including on FFLs and straw purchases

the vast differences in state laws weaken one another when there is no backup from federal law in regards to matters like trafficking

ensuring the appeals process is air tight is important too since denial should be taken as seriously as the right that it is denying is taken.

@paratrooperslife

[thedreadpiratejames]

@paratrooperslife ask your questions off anon, coward

[sleeping-satan]

@paratrooperslife You're actually saying this to someone who's school once had a day where 75% of the students didn't come because there was an all night investigation for a possible school shooting threat. You're saying this to someone who's going to a university where there's been a shooting before. You're saying this to someone who lives by the city with one of the biggest gun problems in the country and more gun will not solve it.

My personality is gun my spouse is gun my brain is gun my cock is gun I Have The Right to Bring Gun Into Walmart

I've shot guns for fun before and still do when I get the chance. My dads a retired police officer that was in swat and I have family members who have served in the military. I get it, it's good to have one for protection and using them to shoot giant jugs of water is pretty damn fun but at this point there could be a shooting for almost every day of the year.

I sound mad but I'm not, I'm just amused of the absurdity that you live in where your hobby matters more to you than peoples lives. I'm not even legally allowed to own a gun but I don't see you fighting for my right to have a lethal weapon.

Blog about them all the fuck you want but yeah I have the entitlement to not get shot.

"Teenagers these days are so entitled"

Yeah, I am entitled. Not because I'm a spoiled brat but because I'm tired. I'm tired of everyone shaking their heads saying it's unfair but not doing anything. I'm tired of the multitudes of solutions there are but nothings being done. I'm tired of dealing with some of this shit on a day to day basis.

I'm entitled to affordable health care and/or insurance coverage on All my medical needs.

I'm entitled to not be in thousands of dollars in debt in order to go to college to get a decent job.

I'm entitled to be safe in my home, my job, my school, anywhere. I should not have to have a backup plan if there's discrimination or someone with a gun.

I'm entitled to be able to do what I want with my body and so is everyone else. From abortion to getting a motherfucking tattoo if it's not your body then fuck off.

I'm entitled to having food, shelter, and water.

I am entitled to be treated like a human being and not trash on the street.

And so are you

[noctomania]

I’m bored and so this is the last dance mate

@paratrooperslife

You supplied me with these two articles (which are the same article by different publishers good job on that one) and asked me also look at BoJ stats for Firearm Violence, 1993-2011

Don’t know how to tell you this, but we know.

We know many if not most crime guns are stolen. Go figure, someone lookin for a gun can steal, or even just borrow, one from their neighbor who has so many they can’t keep track.

“All guns start out as legal guns,” Fabio said in an interview. But a “huge number of them” move into illegal hands.

…

“We have a lot of people with a lot of guns,” Fabio said, referencing statistics on the large number of guns in circulation. “And some of them aren’t keeping track of them for different reasons - maybe because they have a lot of them and they don’t use them that often.”

That was from the article you linked. Honestly you’re still just proving my point that we need better regulation, better legislation, and better enforcement.

As a reminder this was my original post:

Honestly I’m not surprised that through all of this you never once mentioned suicide. Probably because suicide has long been in the lead in overall gun deaths which you probably have no answer for except hopes and prayers

(pew)

And ya’ll don’t like to see that because once someone has killed themselves they can’t be taken to prison which entirely fucks up the whole plan of just incarcerating everyone.

Dern.

I also wonder how much you even looked at your own sources because another interesting chart I found is this one

What makes this interesting is the rise in Military-style semi/full autos in 2004. I wonder what else happened in 2004 that may have coincided…oh that’s right the federal assault weapons ban expired. Go figure legislation actual does do something!

Now, what kind of legislation does matter, but pretending it does nothing good at all is a farce at best.

Other things needing to be done, as i said before, is

More/better FFL audits

require FFLs install proper security including cameras where ever they store and sell guns including gun show arenas

red flag laws with more/better audits of gun owners

PDs should not be selling unclaimed confiscated guns back out to the public cuz go figure that aint a good idea even by cops

Before they went all partisan the NRA used to actually teach responsible gun ownership.

Mind you I grew up around guns. I’ve shot guns when I was younger, my dad had a shotty and a rifle and never had em locked away properly (though i dont know what the laws are in that state then or now in regards to that), not that it counts in the same realm but i was also always playin with my mom’s bb gun, my cousin is a hunter, and in general guns are a big part of the culture of where i grew up. In fact my dad often told a story of how he was at a baseball game and got hit by a bullet (he liked to show the scar). He was never certain but he figured someone shot upwards during an excitin point of the game and what goes up must come down. Lucky it was just his arm. I’m no stranger to guns and I’m not afraid of them. But i respect them as i should in recognizing they are weapons made for the purpose of harm at the very least.

Sure some may look cute and focus more on form than function, or may even be historical, but a gun is a gun even if it don’t shoot straight. It’s still a danger that needs to be taken seriously and the rights come with responsibilities, which are clearly not being taken seriously by enough gun owners, also contributing to the various pervasive issues around it such as trafficking.

Well this is it my guy, I’m done givin ya essays on this when your best contribution is a limp-dick attempt to source yourself on a strawman. You’re intentionally trying to waste my time, but joke is on you because I enjoy research! However I like some variety and, further, reading about how many people died is depressing when i remember so many yall just dont care about how many people die. Call me a parrot, tell me to squawk all ya like, but this is the last serenade because you aren’t even reading anything, just skimming. If you want to know more about gun violence, I guess you’ll just have to finally get off your thumb and do the work yourself. Perhaps if you spent less energy trying to decide what other names you want to call me you might have some left over to piece together something worth anyone’s time. Good luck with finding a personality. Keep your powder dry, mate.

final edit:

their heart is dead, i rest my case.

(What's also funny is this denial resides within them despite the fact the BoJ source they reference literally counts suicides)

[roguemortal]

Sorry tiger, I'm from an older education system than you seem to imply, but you may have better luck in a few years with the kids coming through the current system where almost every bad thing a white man ever did gets erased.

@paratrooperslife I'm sure those slave owning landholders had the same definition of personhood as we do today, that's why blacks, women and all other minorities never had to fight for their already granted rights, yeah?

So gun control always comes back to certain people quoting the 2nd Amendment, which is fine, but if they want to do that then let's require them to obey the whole thing, not just the half they like.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Want to own guns? Great, so long as you're an active member of the military you can have that right. Everyone else who isn't part of a well regulated branch of our armed forces should turn over their weapons as they do not qualify.

There, 2nd Amendment upheld while disarming a significant chunk of those with no business owning guns.

[aridara]

"Buy a gun! Then you can go on to explain how that is the standard for the rest of the USA."

Paratrooperslife failed to provide the second part. Instead of talking about the minimum legal standard required to buy a gun in the USA, they decided to buy a gun in a much stricter State; and then lie and claim that that was the USA standard.

For example: many states in the USA don't require any background check for private sales. So, the minimum legal standard required to buy a gun in the USA does NOT include a background check; the fact that some states decide to use higher standards is irrelevant.

If a random stranger started talking about how they could easily get illegal firearms and make makeshift bombs, and kill lots of innocent people, people would consider that stranger as a potential terrorist.

But when a random stranger says "If you try passing gun control laws, remember that I could just get some illegal firearms and make some makeshift bombs, and kill lots of innocent people. Hint hint", suddenly that starnger is someone who just cares about individual rights?

[gunsandcuffs12v2]

@aridara just like to act like he has insightful thoughts and thinks conservatives are dumber than rocks.

In this instance, he was trying to play "gotcha" by pointing out conservatives should be against trump because trump has recently supported red flag laws and the bumpstock ban, both of which are infringing on 2A rights.

@paratrooperslife tried to point out how he was wrong and pointed out we can support him even as we criticize his particular actions, which most of us do. Even though he has moved against 2A rights and I disagree with that, he has still done a much better job than any dem candidate and still has my support, even as I point out his wrongdoing.

Hes no god, he makes mistakes too, doesnt mean that hes a shit leader or that it's any reason to vote for someone who would intentionally do far far worse.

Fun fact: according to gun fetishists’ standards (specifically the “I believe that any limitation or regulation whatsoever on bearing firearms is a violation on the 2nd amendment” standard), Trump wants to violate the 2nd amendment.

[anon143v2]

@kasaron @paratrooperslife @super---naut

This joker haha cant win with logic, cant win with fallacy or emotion, and then gets butthurt when he realizes hes just a source of humor and entertainment after @gunsandcuffs12v2 says that's all he is.

Good job @aridara you have again given justification for gun owners to ignore you and other gun control fetishists.

stop saying “gun fetishists”, the right to bear arms is a right and discussions on it being a right originate far earlier than the US constitution’s drafting and from all continents we have records of.

No.

See, when I say “gun fetishist”, I do NOT mean “person who believe that everyone has a right to defend themselves”. When I say “gun fetishist”, I mean “person who is actively against any limitation or regulation whatsoever on bearing firearms”.

Gun fetishists represent only a minority of gun owners.

[aridara]

I’m starting to thing that Paratrooperslife, Super---naut and 318-420-47 are all the same person. Each one of them is beginning to answer posts that I made to one of the other two.

I'm starting to think that, when gun fetishists say "The 2nd amendment says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed", what they actually mean is: "...And therefore, any limitation or inconvenience whatsoever on bearing firearms is bad".

Like, I've seen at least one gun fetishist complain because they were allowed to carry a concealed and loaded firearm inside their vehicles... but, if it was a rifle or a shotgun, they were obligated to keep the chamber empty. Like, even that was too much, for them.