America - The Official Thread

[Johnnypenso]

"Worried there will soon be another terrorist attack in the U.S." is directly referring to whether or not there will be another attack. It mentions no part of them being afraid of the attacks themselves, or people who carry them out.

I have no idea which hair you are trying to split. The premise was "Americans aren't afraid of terrorism and that's just a fact."? Clearly they are afraid of terrorism. Are you really trying to argue that no Americans are afraid of terrorism?

 

[Swagger897]

Clearly they are afraid of terrorism

But that's not what the graph is showing. All it shows is whether or not people think another attack will occur, not a direct statement that they're afraid.

Are you really trying to argue that no Americans are afraid of terrorism?

No, but you posted a bogus chart representing nothing previously brought up.

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

1) Mass shootings (esp. in a minimum of 4) are not always terrorist attacks.
2) Mass shootings are not widely reported in the US as such, & barely, if at all, in their own regions.

Since mass shooting is a common topic in this thread now.

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/348...ntries-like-in-us-one-chart-proves-him-wrong/

I have no idea which hair you are trying to split. The premise was "Americans aren't afraid of terrorism and that's just a fact."? Clearly they are afraid of terrorism. Are you really trying to argue that no Americans are afraid of terrorism?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...15-274-days-294-mass-shootings-hundreds-dead/

I guess they made up shootings to inflate numbers though?
Mass shootings are only brought up because we have Canadians here trying to tell us that the United States should close its borders to refugees because some terrorists might come in and convince our babies to kill us in our sleep. You guys are not only insane but incredibly biased against the facts. A poll tells you Americans are afraid of terrorism when it actually shows you that people are only mildly afraid of being killed? Really? That's y ur evidence for closing borders to the refugees? Shaking my head. Here in Chicago we have been threatened by ISIS and zi don't see people behaving any different than before. No one is scared to go to the Lakefront because the big bad Muslims want to kill us. Let the refugees in, let them go through the proper channels and leave it be. Closing the borders helps no one especially when terrorism can come from citizens just as much as foreigners. Not to mention the RIGHT wing(who sleeps with their guns and take them on dates) argue for guns for the very reason! You want your 100 round drum to protect yourself, so protect yourself! They argue again stuns laws that allow the very people they hate to own guns as well(blacks and Muslims)

 

[Johnnypenso]

But that's not what the graph is showing. All it shows is whether or not people think another attack will occur, not a direct statement that they're afraid.

No, but you posted a bogus chart representing nothing previously brought up.

So the hair you want to split is that although the majority of Americans are somewhat or very afraid of another terrorist attack, it does mean they are afraid of terrorism?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...15-274-days-294-mass-shootings-hundreds-dead/

I guess they made up shootings to inflate numbers though?

Hundreds of Americans die in bathtubs every year. Does that mean they shouldn't be afraid of terrorism?

Mass shootings are only brought up because we have Canadians here trying to tell us that the United States should close its borders to refugees because some terrorists might come in and convince our babies to kill us in our sleep.

Source please.

You guys are not only insane but incredibly biased against the facts. A poll tells you Americans are afraid of terrorism when it actually shows you that people are only mildly afraid of being killed? Really?

Read it again. That's not what is says.

That's y ur evidence for closing borders to the refugees?

Source please.

 

[McLaren]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...15-274-days-294-mass-shootings-hundreds-dead/

I guess they made up shootings to inflate numbers though?
Mass shootings are only brought up because we have Canadians here trying to tell us that the United States should close its borders to refugees because some terrorists might come in and convince our babies to kill us in our sleep. You guys are not only insane but incredibly biased against the facts. A poll tells you Americans are afraid of terrorism when it actually shows you that people are only mildly afraid of being killed? Really? That's y ur evidence for closing borders to the refugees? Shaking my head. Here in Chicago we have been threatened by ISIS and zi don't see people behaving any different than before. No one is scared to go to the Lakefront because the big bad Muslims want to kill us. Let the refugees in, let them go through the proper channels and leave it be. Closing the borders helps no one especially when terrorism can come from citizens just as much as foreigners. Not to mention the RIGHT wing(who sleeps with their guns and take them on dates) argue for guns for the very reason! You want your 100 round drum to protect yourself, so protect yourself! They argue again stuns laws that allow the very people they hate to own guns as well(blacks and Muslims)

You said Americans aren't afraid of terrorists because we have more mass shootings than other country. You even said it's a fact, a fact we all know you just spit out without any source.

Again, a mass shooting is not always a terrorist attack. Most mass shootings aren't anywhere near the level of being considered terrorism. 90-95% of the shootings in that link are not reported on a national scale, & reported on maybe once or twice in their own regions.

The fact that 3 people have to be involved to be considered a mass shooting is ridiculous.

 

[Swagger897]

the majority of Americans are somewhat or very afraid of another terrorist attack, it does mean they are afraid of terrorism?

It says nowhere mentioning "afraid" of terrorism.. How have you not seen this yet..

 

[Johnnypenso]

It says nowhere mentioning "afraid" of terrorism.. How have you not seen this yet..

Feel better now? You do know that fear and afraid are the same thing right? Noun, verb etc.?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a...t-attack-inside-united-states/article/2558294

Americans are deeply worried that the a "catastrophic terrorist attack" by Islamic militants, like the one Wednesday on a Paris magazine staff, will happen in the United States, according to a new poll. According to the survey from national pollster McLaughlin & Associates, 74.2 percent of likely voters said they fear terrorists affiliated with the Islamic State will strike U.S. targets if they aren’t stopped.

Now can you end the hairsplitting and concede that the statement that, "Americans aren't afraid of terrorism and that's a fact" is false?

 

[Swagger897]

No, you're relating two different things.


Let's just predict that we'll have another ice age. Am I afraid of the ice age... depends, do I die, or live?


See, how hard is that to tell the difference between predicting events, and being fearful of the event itself...

 

[Johnnypenso]

No, you're relating two different things.

Let's just predict that we'll have another ice age. Am I afraid of the ice age... depends, do I die, or live?

See, how hard is that to tell the difference between predicting events, and being fearful of the event itself...

You are making no sense. A claim was made, it's now refuted.

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

Where are these fearful Americans? All I see is you saying Americans are afraid of another terrorist attack while posting polls showing people thinking there will be another one. It is still no excuse to close the borders at all.

So the hair you want to split is that although the majority of Americans are somewhat or very afraid of another terrorist attack, it does mean they are afraid of terrorism?


Hundreds of Americans die in bathtubs every year. Does that mean they shouldn't be afraid of terrorism?

Source please.

Read it again. That's not what is says.

Source please.

You said Americans aren't afraid of terrorists because we have more mass shootings than other country. You even said it's a fact, a fact we all know you just spit out without any source.

Again, a mass shooting is not always a terrorist attack. Most mass shootings aren't anywhere near the level of being considered terrorism. 90-95% of the shootings in that link are not reported on a national scale, & reported on maybe once or twice in their own regions.

The fact that 3 people have to be involved to be considered a mass shooting is ridiculous.

So because France was attacked, America must close its borders? Yeah sure good luck with that buddy. I already sourced, read the link. America has the most mass shootings in the world. 3 or more people shot is a mass shooting. What is your number for a mass shooting? 100? 200?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Where are these fearful Americans? All I see is you saying Americans are afraid of another terrorist attack while posting polls showing people thinking there will be another one. It is still no excuse to close the borders at all.

Just admit defeat and move on, everyone makes mistakes. Continuing to deny the blatantly obvious doesn't help your case.


I didn't read every single post from top to bottom but I don't recall anyone asking to close the borders. Do you have a source for that? (second request)

 

[McLaren]

So because France was attacked, America must close its borders? Yeah sure good luck with that buddy. I already sourced, read the link. America has the most mass shootings in the world. 3 or more people shot is a mass shooting. What is your number for a mass shooting? 100? 200?

3 people being shot is not a mass shooting & never will be, imo. To think 3 shootings at minimum is in the same category as Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech? The key word mass which usually refers to a large group.

Not surprised you still aren't posting a source for your fact.

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

See Cowboyace's post on the last page , then Swaggers response and then your swift attack on Swagger. It was clear you are in favor of closing borders.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...15-274-days-294-mass-shootings-hundreds-dead/ post a link showing more than this number. This states 4 people shot, and to make it a mass shooting they would need to be shot in the same area and same time.

 

[McLaren]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...15-274-days-294-mass-shootings-hundreds-dead/ post a link showing more than this number. This states 4 people shot, and to make it a mass shooting they would need to be shot in the same area and same time.

It can state all it wants, I think it's a poor definition.

The better part is your link isn't the end-all, be-all; that's just what it seems to define it as, possibly to suit its argument. According to this link however,
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/08/what-is-a-mass-shooting

Broadly speaking, the term refers to an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence. But there is no official set of criteria or definition for a mass shooting, according to criminology experts and FBI officials who have spoken with Mother Jones.

 

[Johnnypenso]

See Cowboyace's post on the last page , then Swaggers response and then your swift attack on Swagger. It was clear you are in favor of closing borders.

Assuming this is for me, sorry, not good enough. You made the claim, so post up the specific links where I said I am in favour of closing the borders. Post the link, or withdraw the claim.

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

McLaren you might want to read your own link. They state in 2005 the FBi came out and said 4 or more people shot is a mass shooting if they are in the same area and same time. Just because you want to ignore 294 times in this country where 4 people died at once as just regular everyday shootings then that's on you. I'll stick to calling them mass shootings just as everyone else including the FBI

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

Assuming this is for me, sorry, not good enough. You made the claim, so post up the specific links where I said I am in favour of closing the borders. Post the link, or withdraw the claim.

Even If I was wrong about you specifically my point still stands. America hasn't been the target of a terrorist attack in years and closing the border serves no purpose.

 

[McLaren]

McLaren you might want to read your own link. They state in 2005 the FBi came out and said 4 or more people shot is a mass shooting if they are in the same area and same time. Just because you want to ignore 294 times in this country where 4 people died at once as just regular everyday shootings then that's on you. I'll stick to calling them mass shootings just as everyone else including the FBI

Generally, there are three terms you'll see to describe a perpetrator of this type of gun violence: mass murderer, spree killer, or serial killer. An FBI crime classification report from 2005 identifies an individual as a mass murderer if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location. (The baseline of four fatalities is key—more on that just below.)

Mass murderer is what they are clarifying, not mass shooting. Might want to take your own advice.

And you're right. I will ignore it because your link is intent on creating this assumption there's some sort of mass shooting epidemic in the US.
Here's another link that states the Govt. actually found far less & that 294 is based on an outside-party.

The federal government’s more restrictive definition means it tends to count fewer incidents than Mass Shooting Tracker. Using 2013, the most recent year for which federal data is available, the Congressional Research Service found 25 mass shooting incidents -- far less than the 363 counted by Mass Shooting Tracker.
....
An academic told us that one problem with Mass Shooting Tracker is it lumps together incidents that are different -- for example, those shot in bar fights are counted along with school shootings.

"This is not consistent with the motivations behind events like Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Tucson, or Sandy Hook, and therefore are not comparable in the way we think of mass shootings," said Jaclyn Schildkraut, at State University of New York System. "By including such events to try and quantify a phenomenon (though the loss of one life is one too many), these sources essentially are inflating the statistics."

http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...ny-americans-have-been-killed-mass-shootings/

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-leads-world-in-mass-shootings-1443905359

25, 363 the U.S still leads all countries in mass shootings, shootings period. They even rated it half true. You are trying to argue semantics when the real problem is shootings of multiple people at once.

And just to bring it home, here's a link for all the regular joe shootings in the U.S

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/number-of-gun-deaths

 

[McLaren]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-leads-world-in-mass-shootings-1443905359

25, 363 the U.S still leads all countries in mass shootings, shootings period. They even rated it half true. You are trying to argue semantics when the real problem is shootings of multiple people at once.

And just to bring it home, here's a link for all the regular joe shootings in the U.S

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/number-of-gun-deaths

25 is a far cry from the number you kept trying to push, so your argument's adjusting to posting something else when you can no longer refute a point thus why we're back to square one without the exaggerated count.

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

That's because you don't think 4 people shot is a mass shooting. You still aren't giving me a definition on what you think a mass shooting is, nor are you showing me where the U.S isn't leading the world in these stats.
I'm sure if you narrowed down mass shootings to 200 people shot at once there would be no shootings in the U.S at all.

 

[McLaren]

That's because you don't think 4 people shot is a mass shooting.

Neither does the govt. findings.

You still aren't giving me a definition on what you think a mass shooting is, nor are you showing me where the U.S isn't leading the world in these stats.
I'm sure if you narrowed down mass shootings to 200 people shot at once there would be no shootings in the U.S at all.

A mass shooting to me is somewhere between 15-20+ people shot considering once more, the term mass generally relates to a large group; 3-4 is not large. I also never said the US isn't leading the world. It's simply not at the exaggerated rate you were touting.

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

Neither does the govt. findings.

A mass shooting to me is somewhere between 15-20+ people shot considering once more, the term mass generally relates to a large group; 3-4 is not large. I also never said the US isn't leading the world. It's simply not at the exaggerated rate you were touting.

Of the 160 incidents studied, 64 (40.0%) would have met the criteria to fall under the federal statute passed in 2012 which defines mass killing as three or more killed in a single incident. Of the 64, 39 of these mass killings occurred within the final 7 years studied

Page 20, unclassified FBI document.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/20...r-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013

 

[McLaren]

Of the 160 incidents studied, 64 (40.0%) would have met the criteria to fall under the federal statute passed in 2012 which defines mass killing as three or more killed in a single incident. Of the 64, 39 of these mass killings occurred within the final 7 years studied

Page 20, unclassified FBI document.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/20...r-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013

That is exactly what you tried to counter before with.

Generally, there are three terms you'll see to describe a perpetrator of this type of gun violence: mass murderer, spree killer, or serial killer. An FBI crime classification report from 2005 identifies an individual as a mass murderer if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location. (The baseline of four fatalities is key—more on that just below.)

Mass murderer is not the same as mass shooting.

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

Mass killing is essentially the same thing as mass shooting, unless you are trying to come at it from the angle of 4 people dead= not mass shooting
4 people dead and 12 injured = mass shooting


You are using an article from 2012 referencing something in 2005 when I'm referencing a federal statue in 2012 defining mass killing as 4 or more people.

 

[McLaren]

Mass killing is essentially the same thing as mass shooting, unless you are trying to come at it from the angle of 4 people dead= not mass shooting
4 people dead and 12 injured = mass shooting

If 4 people are involved & all were killed, that's not a mass shooting; 4 is not a mass amount of people. 4+12 involved is 16, exactly the opinion you asked for, however.

You are using an article from 2012 referencing something in 2005 when I'm referencing a federal statue in 2012 defining mass killing as 4 or more people.

I also used an article that cited govt. findings in 2013. The federal statue is defining a mass murderer.

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

federal statute passed in 2012 which defines mass killing as three or more killed in a single incident.

Mass killing. Mass killing. Mass killing. Mass shooting is a broader definition as it can entail persons injured. If 3 or more people is a mass killing, then 3 or more people shot is a mass shooting especially when there are 4 dead. You are getting hung up over semantics.

 

[McLaren]

federal statute passed in 2012 which defines mass killing as three or more killed in a single incident.

Mass killing. Mass killing. Mass killing. Mass shooting is a broader definition as it can entail persons injured. If 3 or more people is a mass killing, then 3 or more people shot is a mass shooting especially when there are 4 dead. You are getting hung up over semantics.

Which conveniently is exactly what that link your entire logic continues to be based on; 3+ people = mass shooting which is why there's such a high number of them.

Try reading the underline part to understand why a minimum of 3 people shot can't be loped into the same category as these as "mass" shootings.

The federal government’s more restrictive definition means it tends to count fewer incidents than Mass Shooting Tracker. Using 2013, the most recent year for which federal data is available, the Congressional Research Service found 25 mass shooting incidents -- far less than the 363 counted by Mass Shooting Tracker.
....
An academic told us that one problem with Mass Shooting Tracker is it lumps together incidents that are different -- for example, those shot in bar fights are counted along with school shootings.

"This is not consistent with the motivations behind events like Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Tucson, or Sandy Hook, and therefore are not comparable in the way we think of mass shootings," said Jaclyn Schildkraut, at State University of New York System. "By including such events to try and quantify a phenomenon (though the loss of one life is one too many), these sources essentially are inflating the statistics."

Re-read the bold over & over & over since that's how you think a point gets across. If 3 people dead is a mass killing & thus, a mass shooting, then yes there is an epidemic of mass shootings in the US. Fortunately, that's not the actual case, so I'll cut myself out to save me from reading what will surely the same argument.

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

Like my original point, gun violence from fellow citizens is still more than terrorism in the United States. Mass shooting or not, 4 people getting shot at once 360+ times is still more than terroristic acts of the same caliber. If someone is afraid of terrorism it's because they watch mainstream media too much & probably believe there is a terror cell in every state and in Mexico and Canada directly outside the border preparing for an invasion. The average American however, dosent think twice about terrorism.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Try reading the underline part to understand why a minimum of 3 people shot can't be loped into the same category as these as "mass" shootings.

There's academic division on whether or not 3-or-more murders in one go should constitute a "mass shooting" for the purposes of statistical collection. We get that, we get that statistical goalpost are a fluid, subjective thing.

The thing that leaves me the most uncomfortable about your post is the feeling that you're close to saying "up to 3? Meh.". Where would you draw the line at calling something a "mass shooting"?