Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, August 29, 2019

Frank Figliuzzi, former FBI assistant director for counterintelligence and NBC News/MSNBC analyst: It's been a little over three weeks since deadly back-to-back mass shootings took 31 lives in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio. In that short time, at least two dozen people have been arrested in connection with planning or threatening more mass shootings. According to law enforcement, somehow, we've managed to narrowly avoid impending catastrophe two dozen times in less than a month.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Forgot to add "Opinion" to the beginning of the summary...

#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-08-29 10:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no".

#2 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-29 10:15 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

@#2

Nice bumper sticker ya got there. :)

The headline didn't end in a question mark, I had to cut it short in order to fit the 60 characters. The entire headline reads:

Are mass shootings on the rise? What near misses like Rodolfo Montoya teach us after El Paso


#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-08-29 10:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The headline didn't end in a question mark

#3 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER AT 2019-08-29 10:43 AM | REPLY

Yours does, and the answer is no.

Mp evidence of an epidemic of mass shootings

"But Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox, the leading researcher on the topic for the past 35 years, tells Reason, "There is no evidence that we are in the midst of an epidemic of mass shootings." The number of incidents and casualties are simply too small to make such claims and, he stresses, the media coverage of shootings often ends up creating a false sense that gun violence"which is at or near historic lows"is ubiquitous and growing."

#4 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-29 10:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

@#4

So, you agree with everything in the article except the excerpt of the headline?

What do you think these near misses teach us?



#5 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-08-29 11:17 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Lets start with a basic number. Of threats posted online, how many are real? What's the %?

#6 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-29 11:32 AM | Reply

and I'm simply saying "No. Mass shootings are not on the rise." Arresting people for threats isn't a "near miss" unless you can prove they fully intent to carry it out.

#7 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-29 11:35 AM | Reply

@#7 ... Arresting people for threats ...

What about the process used to find those people who are making those threats? That process seems to be more active (intentionally more active).

And it seems to be yielding results.

Good progress?

#8 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-08-29 11:42 AM | Reply

Rounding people up for violent threats in general in a good thing, but it does not equate to "stopping a mass shooting". If there was evidence of planning for murder, they'd be arrested for attempted murder instead of just making threats.

#9 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-29 11:44 AM | Reply

They're catching the freaks before they shoot! (News gun grabbers hate)
Thank God for LEO.

#10 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2019-08-29 12:01 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

It's all cyclical but people have attention spans the length of a gnat so it becomes a buzz word. Eventually, law enforcement will crack down hard enough where people will stop using threatening language as much as they do today. Then, it will get more and more lax the less shootings occur, and it will eventually get normal again, and then law enforcement has to crack down, and then it will get more and more lax...and on and on.

#11 | Posted by humtake at 2019-08-29 12:03 PM | Reply

@#9 ... Rounding people up for violent threats in general in a good thing, but it does not equate to "stopping a mass shooting". If there was evidence of planning for murder, they'd be arrested for attempted murder instead of just making threats. ...

I do not disagree.

One of the things I wonder is... what is the percentage of violent threats made to mass shootings committed? That's a bit of a difficult statistic to research.

So, how early in the process of moving towards a mass shooting should LEO move in and try to stop the process?

#12 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-08-29 12:09 PM | Reply

Clearly at the moment a violent thought enters someone's head

-Bureau of Future Crime

#13 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-08-29 12:12 PM | Reply



@#13

From the cited article:

...Here are the warning signs developed by the team at sandyhookpromise.org following the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. There are many similar lists, but this one is simple and applies across the spectrum of mass shooters:

  • A strong fascination or obsession with firearms can be a warning sign.
  • Extreme feelings of isolation or social withdrawal can be a warning sign.
  • Victims of long-term bullying may have feelings of being picked on or persecuted by others, a potential warning sign.
  • Threats of violence or antisocial behavior can be a warning sign.
  • Hinting about an upcoming attack or making threats of violence (overt or subtle) are serious warning signs that demand intervention.
  • Victims of constant social rejection or marginalization can become socially isolated, a potential warning sign.
    ...

  • #14 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-08-29 12:20 PM | Reply

    @14
    Thoughts words and feelings-throw em in jail

    #15 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-08-29 12:27 PM | Reply

    "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no".

    #2 | Posted by sitzkrieg

    "IS TRUMP LOOKING OUT FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY?"

    #16 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-08-29 01:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

    @#16

    You beat me to it.

    I was going to post something like that as a headline for a comment in one of the upcoming days... :)

    #17 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-08-29 01:42 PM | Reply

    The number of incidents and casualties are simply too small

    #4 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

    Compared to what? In the real world, the number of incidents and casualties are staggering.

    #18 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2019-08-29 02:10 PM | Reply

    For the sake of argument, let's say they are.

    WHY are they going up? Were guns in short supply 40-50 years ago? No? Well then....what changed?

    #19 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-08-29 03:15 PM | Reply

    For the sake of argument, let's say they are.

    WHY are they going up? Were guns in short supply 40-50 years ago? No? Well then....what changed?

    Posted by MUSTANG

    40 or 50 years ago the guns people owned were bolt action hunting rifles, shotguns, and pistols. The vast majority o Americans did not carry guns around or feel the need to. Private citizens had to have a good reason to get a permit to carry a pistol; people moving valuables like gems, large amounts of cash. Permits weren't handed out like candy.

    Thank the NRA and the politicians in their pockets for the current state of affairs.

    #20 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-29 03:59 PM | Reply

    heavy metal and video games are to blame for whitey's mass shootings - FACT!

    Not sure why inner city non-whiteys shoot so many though. haven't found any articles in the news explaining that greater problem...

    #21 | Posted by mutant at 2019-08-29 10:22 PM | Reply

    #20 Given that maybe 650 homicides annually are due to rifles OF ANY TYPE, do you want to revisit your inane argument? The guns being used in killings are not significantly different today than 50 years ago, and they were WAY easier to buy back then.

    So I ask again...what changed? WHY (again, accepting the premise of the article) are there more?

    #22 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-08-29 10:40 PM | Reply

    WAY easier to buy back then.
    So I ask again...what changed? WHY (again, accepting the premise of the article) are there more?

    POSTED BY MUSTANG AT 2019-08-29 10:40 PM | REPLY

    You're so full of schit it's running down your legs. It's way easier today than 50 years ago. You can order a gun online and receive it in a couple days.

    www.scientificamerican.com

    Is It Easier to Buy a Gun Online?
    Conditions are lax when individuals sell guns to each other online

    Suspected Colorado movie theater gunman James Holmes purchased more than 6,000 rounds of ammunition on the Internet in the space of 60 days, according to police reports. He also purchased four guns, including a military-style AR-15 assault rifle, from local stores. All of his purchases " both online and in-person " were legal, authorities said.

    "It's a wide-open marketplace," Tom Mauser, a gun-control advocate in Colorado whose son was killed in the 1999 Columbine shootings, told reporters. "The Internet has really changed things. You don't have to show your face. It's anything goes."

    When a transaction takes place between individuals who live in the same state " in-person or online such as through a classified ad " the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 does not require any recordkeeping, according to the Federal Government's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

    #23 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-08-29 10:57 PM | Reply

    Send in
    the clowns

    #24 | Posted by LesWit at 2019-08-30 12:38 AM | Reply

    When a transaction takes place between individuals who live in the same state " in-person or online such as through a classified ad " the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 does not require any recordkeeping, according to the Federal Government's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
    #23 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR AT 2019-08-29 10:57 PM | FLAG:

    That's called a Private Party Transaction. It is a state by state law.

    What's the Colorado Law say... ?

    "Colorado requires private gun sellers who are not federally licensed dealers to initiate a background check when transferring a firearm. With the exceptions listed below, any unlicensed individual who seeks to transfer possession of a firearm to a prospective transferee must: 1) require that a background check is conducted on the prospective transferee by a licensed gun dealer; and 2) obtain approval of the transfer from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) following the background check request."

    #25 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-30 08:04 AM | Reply

    #23 Wow....that's stupid. I didn't have internet 50 years ago, so ordering online was NOT easier.

    What WAS easy was rolling in to a hardware store and buying a gun. We ordered war surplus through the mail from Shotgun News. I bought Mosin Nagants for $25. A 25 cal Raven throwaway pocket gun was dirt cheap. There was no NICS check - period. We bought all SORTS of guns, gun parts, modifications, you name it....we had it. ANYONE willing to check "no" on a questionnaire could do the same with utter impunity, and yet mass shootings weren't the "thing" they are today.

    #26 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-08-30 10:57 AM | Reply

    #20 Given that maybe 650 homicides annually are due to rifles OF ANY TYPE, do you want to revisit your inane argument? The guns being used in killings are not significantly different today than 50 years ago, and they were WAY easier to buy back then.
    So I ask again...what changed? WHY (again, accepting the premise of the article) are there more?

    #22 | POSTED BY MUSTANG

    Facts:

    Actually, because the Feds don't keep very good records on Firearm homicides and the CDC is essentially banned from collecting them, about 30% of firearm homicides don't have a listed gun type. So the number from rifles is likely around 10% or 1,000-1,400.

    Guns per Person
    1950: 1 gun for every 3 people
    2019: 1.2 guns for every 1 person

    Firearm Homicide Rate:
    1950: 2.9 for every 100,000 People
    1968: 5 for every 100,000 People
    2019: 5 for every 100,000 People
    (It should be noted the number of people shot is way up, but we are far better at saving them now than in 1968)

    I'd love to give you statistics about where criminals get their guns, but the Republicans made gathering such data illegal in 2003.

    Locations of Mass Shootings:
    Before 1960: mostly familicides or felony related killings out of public places
    Post 1960: most mass shootings are in public places against unknown or barely known bystanders

    Frequency of Mass Shootings:
    1960's: 1 per 16 months
    2019: 1 per 1.5 months
    1/3 of all victims of mass shootings since 1968 have died in the last 4 years

    The FBI found an increase in active shooter incidents between 2000 and 2013. The average number of incidents rose from 6.4 a year in the first seven years of the study to an average of 16.4 a year in the second seven-year period. In subsequent studies, the FBI recorded 20 active shooter incidents per year in 2014 and 2015, followed by 20 incidents in 2016, 30 in 2017 and 27 in 2018.

    Types of Weapons:
    1950's was dominated by single shot rifles and shotguns and to a lesser extent Revolvers
    2019 is dominated by assault rifles and semi-automatic handguns

    Ironically, the number of firearm homicides are likely a bit higher but only 90% of law enforcement agencies submit their data to the FBI.

    #27 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-08-30 05:09 PM | Reply

    and the CDC is essentially banned from collecting them,

    Not even close to true.

    #28 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-31 12:10 AM | Reply

    What do you think these near misses teach us?

    #5 | Posted by LampLighter

    Every time I drive down a 2 lane road I have MANY near misses and you do to. Do you add that count to your accident record?

    #29 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-08-31 11:20 AM | Reply

    Comments are closed for this entry.

    Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

    Drudge Retort