The number 1 problem is mental illness and the left refuses to address the real reason.

Truth is once you remove gangs out of the equation America is one of the safest places to live in the world. Just about the same amount of people are shot and killed in Chicago on a weekend(50shot/6killed on average).

Its not the gun its the person. The people are mentally ill and have shown that they want to murder people but no one in government will listen or give a damn until blood is spilt.

Police protect the people and the people protect the police. If the balance is broken then it will not be long before the republic dies a very horrible civil war death.

You are more likely to be beaten to death by a blunt object such as a hammer than an AR15 rifle.

I am certainly not likely to be murdered by an AR-15 rifle. What is mentally ill is the obsession with the gun. There is a complete disconnect between the fact that the AR-15 is the weapon of choice for these urban terrorists and its availability. People buy these guns and yet it must be obvious to someone that there is something odd about the situation. Everyone is wise after the fact about the shooter..

Let us examine this for a moment. There are millions of illegal handguns available but the weapon of choice is this "sporting" weapon. Why? because you don't have to go down a dark alley and associate with criminal types to buy one. These weapons belong in armories when not in use

Just remember Hitler and other tyrants love a disarmed popularion.

Mass shooting deaths are on par with getting killed by lightning.

Do you really believe that you can equate random physical characteristics of the Universe with irrational human behavior?

https://mobile.twitter.com/neiltyson/status/1158074774297468928

Neil deGrasse Tyson
@neiltyson

In the past 48hrs, the USA horrifically lost 34 people to mass shootings.

On average, across any 48hrs, we also lose…

500 to Medical errors
300 to the Flu
250 to Suicide
200 to Car Accidents
40 to Homicide via Handgun

Often our emotions respond more to spectacle than to data.

12:58 PM · Aug 4, 2019

I am certainly not likely to be murdered by an AR-15 rifle.

I bet the new Zealanders moslem thought the same.

Guns are not the issue. Its the mentally ill people. That is and has always been the issue since western society decided to not deal with the mentally ill. Which encompasses liberal progressives(Which a study confirmed).

Guns protect people. It makes a 100lb women equal to a 400lb man. God made man but Sam Colt made them equal!

Fact is most mass shootings using hand guns and shot guns.

Why do you want to punish the good citizens because of the mentally ill criminals?

Look at London. They took away the gun and they still have gun crime. If they can not get guns they use knives or something else. Its so bad in London that they are banning knives!!

OMG what's next ban good people from living in London?/s

Why do you want to punish the good citizens because of the mentally ill criminals?

I don't wish to punish good people and I think not only should the mentally ill not be allowed to own guns they should be locked up where they can't harm good people.

Should we ban people from living in London or any over stuffed city. NO! we should ban weapons within their precincts

Pinguinite: Mass shooting deaths are on par with getting killed by lightning.

Buekeroo: Do you really believe that you can equate random physical characteristics of the Universe with irrational human behavior?

Had you checked, then you would have found references showing the odds of death in mass shooting (US only): 1 in 11,125 while the odds of death by lightning strike (US only): 1 in 161,831. Conclusion: So it seems that it's actually a lot more likely for an American to die in a mass shooting than it is for us to die in lightning strikes.

After realizing that we all have just witnessed one libertarian, Bucky, asking another libertarian, Pinguinite, if he “really believes” something – Then, this has gotta be the funniest thing we have read in a long while.

1 in 11,125

That number is bullshit.

That would mean there are 29393 people killed in mass shootings in the usa each year. Not true.

Which would mean 81 killed each day in mass shootings. I don't believe that.

[The statistical odds of death in mass shooting (US only) is} 1 in 11,125

That number is bullshit.

That would mean there are 29393 people killed in mass shootings in the usa each year. Not true.

Which would mean 81 killed each day in mass shootings. I don't believe that.

So, let’s examine what is true and what to believe.

To begin, we must first understand that “statistical odds” are an “expression of relative probabilities” and in no way a prediction of something that will happen – is expected to happen – or a validation of anything that has happened.

Are we clear on this?

Hoping that we are, then let’s delve deeper and understand ...

… the probability that an event will occur is the fraction of times you expect to see that event in many trials. Probabilities always range between 0 and 1. The odds are defined as the probability that the event will occur divided by the probability that the event will not occur.

Now that we have that clear, we can then understand that if the probability of an event occurring is Y, then the probability of the event not occurring is 1- Y. I will cite you an example for further clarification: If the probability of an event is 0.80 (80%), then the probability that the event will not occur is 1-0.80 = 0.20, or 20%.

So, we can now understand that the odds of an event represent the ratio of the (probability that the event will occur) / (probability that the event will not occur). Actually this can be expressed a follows in a formula: Odds of event = Y / (1-Y)

I trust you now have a better perspective …

Are we clear on this?

No we are not even close.

That statistics if determined by dividing the number of people in the country by the number of incidents.

It is that simple.

Made up numbers from your source are irrelevant.

That statistics if determined by dividing the number of people in the country by the number of incidents.

That is not what the source was looking at.

The number the source quoted is the “statistical probability” that something CAN happen.

Are we closer to understanding?

I have obviously done a poor job of sharing this information with you, for which I apologize.

Perhaps you can better understand the information if you read The odds that a gun will kill the average American may surprise you at https://www.businessinsider.com/us-gun-death-murder-risk-statistics-2018-3.

This is yet another source that shows assaults by firearm kill about 13,000 people in the US each year, and this translates to a roughly 1-in-315 lifetime chance of death from gun violence. It also shows that the risk of dying in a mass shooting is about 35 times lower than that, with a 1-in-11,125 lifetime chance of death.

This all I can possibly say on this.

Enjoy your day …

That was a really stupid question to ask. You must remember that Pinguinite is a libertarian. Anyone using sound practical judgment and having a discerning mind would be fully conscious of the fact that libertarians believe only what they want to believe. Therefore, instead of asking such a dumbass question – just check the data?

This is one of the reasons I've put you on bozo. Your obsessiveness with libertarianism has just totally screwed your mind, and you cannot manage an intelligent debate without being condescending.

Had you checked, then you would have found referenc-es showing the odds of death in mass shooting (US only): 1 in 11,125 while the odds of death by lightning strike (US only): 1 in 161,831. Conclusion: So it seems that it's actually a lot more likely for an American to die in a mass shooting than it is for us to die in lightning strikes.

Number of people killed annually by lightning 2005 - 2014: 49

https://weather.com/storms/severe/news/lightning-deaths-by-state-2005-2014

Number of people killed annually by mass shootings, average 1982-2017: 27

https://time.com/4965022/deadliest-mass-shooting-us-history/

Stats can differ depending on the time periods analyzed. It could be that looking at this year alone would show mass shootings a couple times higher that lightning. If you only look at the single day of the Vegas shooting, then you'll certainly get a shooting figure far, far higher than lightning.

But who cares about stats? You don't. You only care about disparaging libertarians. It's how you get your jollies.

You find the number “1-in-11,125” at a number of different source calculations. You can argue with ‘them” is you wish to. I have no reason to.

I have no reason to either. My comparison of deaths was lightning to mass shootings, not death by gunfire, which maybe you were too stupid to understand.

You only care about disparaging libertarians.

Not my "only" care.

But ....

How is that working out?

Mass shooting deaths are on par with getting killed by lightning.

My comparison of deaths was lightning to mass shootings, not death by gunfire, which maybe you were too stupid to understand.

No it isn’t.

I would need to be really stupid – which I of course am not – to understand and believe the fake statistic you pulled out of your libertarian ass.

In 2007, 45 people were killed by lightning in the USA. The average is 31 deaths per year.
https://www.weather.gov/safety/lightning- fatalities17

Last year there were 334 mass shootings resulting in 606 deaths. Overall there were 10,982 firearms homicides, not suicides, just murders.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the- u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

You are over 19 times more likely to be killed in a mass shooting and 486 times more likely to be killed with a firearm than killed by lightning in the USA.

Conclusion: Mass shooting deaths are DEFINITELY NOT on par with getting killed by lightning.

Dictionary Definition of “on a par with” means “equal to.”

Last year there were 334 mass shootings resulting in 606 deaths. Overall there were 10,982 firearms homicides, not suicides, just murders.

I don't know where you get the mass shooting numbers you cite. Certainly don't see them on the link you gave.

Also, using the "mass shooting" definition of 4 or more shooting deaths from a single incident, your stat doesn't fly because 606 deaths on 334 "mass shootings" only comes to an average of 1.8 deaths per "mass shooting".

Wanna try again?

… using the "mass shooting" definition of 4 or more shooting deaths from a single incident …

Stop with the “using” shit.

You libertarians continually lie and cheat to try to support your positions.

I will never let you do that with me.

There is no definition of the term "mass shooting" with respect to qny number of deaths.

Dammit – You knew that yet you try to sleeze something by me.

A mass shooting by its very nature is an incident involving multiple victims of firearm-related violence.

I don't know where you get the mass shooting numbers you cite. Certainly don't see them on the link you gave.

Wanna try again?

Nope ...

No, you CANNOT ARBITARILY use a number you selected to define a “mass shooting.”

Sure I can. This is a claim I made, so I set the definitions. Yes, how very libertarian of me to define the terms I use.

But it's not my definition. A net search shows that while there is no firm definition of a mass shooting, 4 deaths in a single shooting incident seems to be the most common definition.

You libertarians continually lie and cheat to try to support your positions.

Getting a bit testy there, are you!

There is no definition of the term "mass shooting" with respect to qny number of deaths.

The whole point I made had to do with deaths. In case you forgot.

Dammit – You knew that yet you try to sleeze something by me.

How do you define "sleeze" in your sentence?

A mass shooting by its very nature is an incident involving multiple victims of firearm-related violence.

A "mass shooting" in the context of MSM is one in which lots of people get killed sufficient to make it national news, which is, of course, when everyone starts talking about it and calling it an epidemic which, compared to the Black Plague or the more recent Spanish Flu of 1918, it is certainly not.

I am not going t spoon feed you or fall to your tactic of placing me on the defensive. If you cannot find the numbers there – Then feel free to use any of the many charts available to get the mass shooting numbers for last year.

Fine. You made the claim and choose not to defend it. It is your libertarian right to do so.

Nope ...

Good choice.

No, you CANNOT ARBITARILY use a number you selected to define a “mass shooting.”

Sure I can.

Mass shooting deaths are on par with getting killed by lightning.

As of August 4, 2019, 11 lightning fatalities have occurred in 2019.
https://www.weather.gov/safety/lightning-fatalities

These numbers certainly do not show that “mass shooting deaths are on par with getting killed by lightning.”

As of July 31, 2019, 248 mass shootings have occurred in 2019 with 246 fatalities.

Yes, with two fewer fatalities than "mass shootings".

Get a grip Gatlin. (Hey, try saying that 5 times real fast!)

It's about time to put you back on bozo.

Mass shooting deaths are on par with getting killed by lightning.

There were 20 lightning deaths in 2018.
https://www.weather.gov/safety/lightning-fatalities18

These numbers certainly do not show that “mass shooting deaths are on par with getting killed by lightning.”

It's about time to put you back on bozo.

Go ahead.

I have more data to post for others to read ...

Go ahead.

Okay.

I have more data to post for others to read ...

Ooooohh... maybe I should wait!

Mass shooting deaths are on par with getting killed by lightning.

There were 16 lightning-related fatalities in 2017.
https://www.google.com/search? q=lightning+deaths+in+2017&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqkom- 4vbjAhWWQc0KHckeCxkQBQgsKAA&biw=1097&bih=554

Ooooohh... maybe I should wait!

Good choice ...

Mass shooting deaths are on par with getting killed by lightning.

there were 38 lightning fatalities in 2016.
https://www.google.com/search? ei=2exNXbm9JMPdtAbcn5jQBQ&q=lightning+deaths+in+2016&oq=lightning+deaths+in+20 16&gs_l=psy- ab.12..0i22i30l4.157498.158756..161534...0.0..0.90.172.2......0....1..gws- wiz.......0i71j0.nPvgH08xoMU&ved=0ahUKEwj5ja3a5PbjAhXDLs0KHdwPBloQ4dUDCAo

These numbers certainly do not show that “mass shooting deaths are on par with getting killed by lightning.”

I have now posted enough researched data – with sources – to show to everyone that you were definitely WRONG when you posted :

Mass shooting deaths are on par with getting killed by lightning.

I am finished thrashing you.

You may now place me on bozo.

So long …

[Pinguinite #23] … using the "mass shooting" definition of 4 or more shooting deaths from a single incident …

[Gatlin #24] There is no definition of the term "mass shooting" with respect to qny number of deaths.

Here is a legal definition of mass killing. "(I) the term 'mass killings' means 3 or more killings in a single incident." Public Law 112-265; 126 STAT. 2435.

Carry on.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-112publ265/html/PLAW-112publ265.htm

[112th Congress Public Law 265]

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 126 STAT. 2435]]

Public Law 112-265

112th Congress

                                 An Act

To amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify the statutory
 
authority for the longstanding practice of the Department of Justice of 

providing investigatory assistance on request of State and local 

authorities with respect to certain serious violent crimes, and for 

other purposes. NOTE: Jan. 14, 2013 -  [H.R. 2076]

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 

United States of America in Congress assembled, NOTE: Investigative 

Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012. 6 USC 101 note.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Investigative Assistance for Violent
 
Crimes Act of 2012''.

SEC. 2. INVESTIGATION OF CERTAIN VIOLENT ACTS, SHOOTINGS,

AND MASS KILLINGS.

    (a) Attorney General.--Title 28, United States Code, is amended--

            (1) in section 530C(b)(1)(L)(i), by striking ``$2,000,000''
 
        and inserting ``$3,000,000''; and

            (2) in section 530C(b)(1), by adding at the end the 

        following--

                    ``(M)(i) At the request of an appropriate law
 
                enforcement official of a State or political 

                subdivision, the Attorney General may assist in the
 
                investigation of violent acts and shootings occurring in
 
                a place of public use and in the investigation of mass 

                killings and attempted mass killings. Any assistance 

                provided under this subparagraph shall be presumed to be 

                within the scope of Federal office or employment.

                    ``(i) <> For purposes of this
 
                subparagraph--

                          ``(I) the term `mass killings' means 3 or more 

                      killings in a single incident; and

                          ``(II) the term `place of public use' has the 

                      meaning given that term under section 2332f(e)(6)
 
                      of title 18, United States Code.''.

[...]

nolu chan: Here is a legal definition of mass killing. "(I) the term 'mass killings' means 3 or more killings in a single incident." Public Law 112-265; 126 STAT. 2435.

You have pointed out where in one case restricted to the DOJ “the term mass killings means 3 or more killings in a single incident” when used “to clarify the statutory authority for the longstanding practice of the Department of Justice when Public Law Public Law 112-265; 126 STAT. 2435 [Date Approved: January 14, 2013] is applied and is used “to clarify the statutory authority for the longstanding practice of the Department of Justice of providing investigatory assistance on request of State and local authorities with respect to certain serious violent crimes […]

Media outlets, academic researchers, and law enforcement agencies [the definition for the DOJ is discussed above] frequently use different definitions when discussing mass shootings, leading to different assessments of how frequently mass shootings occur and whether they are more common now than they were a decade or two ago.

Mass Shootings: Definitions and Trends

In this essay, we provide an overview of mass shootings, one of the eight outcomes examined in our research syntheses. We first describe different approaches for defining a mass shooting and then discuss how using different definitions [Emphasis Added] can influence estimates of mass shooting levels and trends. The information was collected from a targeted search of the literature separate from that outlined in the methodology description.

What Is a Mass Shooting?

In the 1980s, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defined mass murderer as someone who “kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location” (Krouse and Richardson, 2015). However, the government has never defined mass shooting as a separate category, and there is not yet a universally accepted definition of the term. Thus, media outlets, academic researchers, and law enforcement agencies frequently use different definitions when discussing mass shootings, which can complicate our understanding of mass shooting trends and their relationship to gun policy. The table below provides examples of the variation in the criteria set by five of the most commonly referenced data sources on mass shootings in the United States.

Although there is no official standard for the casualty threshold that distinguishes a mass shooting from other violent crimes involving a firearm, a common approach in the literature is to adopt the FBI’s criteria for a mass murderer and set a casualty threshold of four fatalities by firearm, excluding the offender or offenders (Duwe, ­Kovandzic, and Moody, 2002; Krouse and Richardson, 2015; Gius, 2015c; Fox and Fridel, 2016). However, this categorization is not without controversy. It does not capture incidents in which fewer than four victims were killed but additional victims were injured, and it does not include multiple-victim homicides in which fewer than four fatalities resulted from gunshots but additional fatalities occurred by other means. Additionally, the FBI classification of mass murderer was established primarily with the aim of clarifying criminal profiling procedures, not for the purpose of data collection or statistical ­analysis (Ressler, Burgess, and Douglas, 1988). Thus, many have chosen alternative definitions of casualty thresholds for mass shootings. For instance, Lott and Landes (2000) adopted the definition of two or more injured victims, the Gun Violence Archive (undated-a) defined mass shooting as an incident in which four or more victims (excluding the shooter) are injured or killed, and Mass Shooting Tracker (undated) set a criterion of four or more people injured or killed (including the shooter).

Another definitional disagreement is whether to include multiple-victim shooting incidents that occur in connection with some other crime or domestic dispute. Because mass shootings that stem from domestic and gang violence are contextually distinct from high-fatality indiscriminate killings in public venues, some have argued that they should be treated separately. In their analyses of “mass public shootings,” Lott and Landes (2000) excluded any felony-related shooting, and Duwe, Kovandzic, and Moody (2002) excluded incidents where “both the victims and offender(s) were involved in unlawful activities, such as organized crime, gang activity, and drug deals” (p. 276). Similarly, Gius (2015c) restricted analysis to events that occurred in a relatively public area and in which victims appeared to have been selected randomly. However, others have claimed that this narrow definition ignores a substantial proportion of gun-related violence from family- or felony-related murder (Fox and Levin, 2015). Data collection efforts by Mass Shooting Tracker and the Gun Violence Archive thus counted all incidents that met their designated casualty threshold as mass shootings, regardless of the circumstances that led to the event.

These definitions matter. Depending on which data source is referenced, there were seven, 65, 332, or 371 mass shootings in the United States in 2015 (see table below), and those are just some examples. More-restrictive definitions (e.g., Mother Jones) focus on the prevalence of higher-profile events motivated by mass murder, but they omit more-common incidents occurring in connection with domestic violence or criminal activity, which make up about 80 percent of mass shooting incidents with four or more fatally injured victims (Krouse and Richardson, 2015). Broader definitions (e.g., Mass Shooting Tracker) provide a more comprehensive depiction of the prevalence of gun violence, but they obscure the variety of circumstances in which these incidents take place and their associated policy implications. Furthermore, if the effects of a firearm policy are expected to affect only public mass shooting incidents, then analysis that includes domestic violence mass shootings in the outcome measure could obscure identification of significant effects that would be found in a more targeted analysis of public mass shootings alone. There is thus value in having multiple measurements of mass shootings—but only if their definitions are clearly and precisely explained and they are used by researchers in a manner appropriate to the analysis.

Variation in How Mass Shootings Are Defined and Counted

Chart presented here.

Are Mass Shootings on the Rise?

In 2014, the FBI released a study showing that “active shooting incidents” had increased at an average annual rate of 16 percent between 2000 and 2013 (Blair and Schweit, 2014). In contrast to the varied definitions for mass shootings, there is an agreed-upon definition among government agencies for active shooter: “an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area; in most cases, active shooters use firearm(s) and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims” (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2008, p. 2). Using a modified version of this definition to include incidents that had multiple offenders or occurred in confined spaces, Blair and Schweit (2014) found that active shootings had increased from only one incident in 2000 to 17 in 2013.

The FBI study (Blair and Schweit, 2014) highlighted several key issues in determining trends in mass shootings. First, the absence of a systematic definition of mass shootings can lead to misinterpretation of reported evidence. While the study explicitly stated, “This is not a study of mass killings or mass shootings” (p. 5), extensive media coverage cited the study as evidence of a sharp rise in mass shootings and mass shooting fatalities (Lott, 2015). However, the definition of an active-shooter incident is broader than any of the commonly used criteria for mass shootings (see table above) because it does not set any casualty threshold. Of the 160 active-shooter incidents included in the FBI’s analysis, 7 percent resulted in zero casualties, 20 percent resulted in zero fatalities, and 22 percent resulted in a single fatality (Lott, 2015). Setting a threshold of zero victims increases the potential for measurement error, because shooting incidents with no casualties are more difficult to identify from police records and are less likely to receive media coverage (Duwe, Kovandzic, and Moody, 2002). Additionally, because it should be relatively easier to identify more-recent shootings with few fatalities, a low casualty threshold will tend to systematically bias estimates of the number of shootings upward over time. For example, the Stanford Mass Shootings in America database, which relies solely on online media sources to identify mass shooting events, cautions its users, “Data in the [database] spans a time period that includes the transition from traditional media to digital media in reporting. Numbers of incidents per year should at least in part be assumed to reflect this collection methodology and not just changes in incident frequency.” Thus, the more than threefold surge in mass shooting incidents from 2014 to 2015 shown in the Stanford data likely reflects increased online reporting and not necessarily a true increase in the rate of mass shootings.

Even when a more restrictive casualty threshold of four or more fatally injured victims (excluding the shooter) is imposed, empirical evidence on trends in these incidents varies depending on whether the motivation of the shooter is included as a criterion for considering an event a mass shooting. In their analysis of mass shooting trends from 1999 to 2013, Krouse and Richardson (2015) distinguished between mass shootings occurring in public locations that are indiscriminate in nature (“mass public shootings”), mass shootings in which the majority of victims are members of the offender’s family and that are not attributable to other criminal activity (“familicide mass shootings”), and mass shootings that occur in connection to some other criminal activity (“other felony mass shootings”). The two figures below show trends in these types of mass shooting incidents and fatalities, respectively, using the data provided in Krouse and Richardson (2015). Extending the data back to the 1970s, two studies found evidence of a slight increase in the frequency of mass public shootings over the past three decades (Cohen, Azrael, and Miller, 2014; Krouse and Richardson, 2015). However, using an expanded definition that includes domestic- or felony-related killings, there is little evidence to suggest that mass shooting incidents or fatalities have increased (Cohen, Azrael, and Miller, 2014; Krouse and Richardson, 2015; Fox and Fridel, 2016). Thus, different choices about how to define a mass shooting result in different findings for both the prevalence of these events at a given time and whether their frequency has changed over time.

Trends in Mass Shooting Incidents, by Type of Incident

Graphs presented here.

Definitional issues aside, the relative rarity of mass shooting events makes analysis of trends particularly difficult. Chance variability in the annual number of mass shooting incidents makes it challenging to discern a clear trend, and trend estimates will be sensitive to outliers and to the time frame chosen for analysis. For example, while Krouse and Richardson (2015) found evidence of an upward trend in mass public shootings from 1999 to 2013, they noted that the increase was driven largely by 2012, which had an unusually high number of mass public shooting incidents. Additionally, Lott (2015) showed that the FBI study’s estimate of a dramatic increase in active-shooter incidents was largely driven by the choice of 2000 as the starting date, because that year had an unusually low number of shooting incidents; extending the analysis to cover 1977 onward and adjusting the data to exclude events with fewer than two fatalities, Lott (2015) found a much smaller and statistically insignificant increase (less than 1 percent annually) in mass shooting fatalities over time.

Conclusions

While different choices about how to define a mass shooting [Boldness Added] and the period over which to calculate mass shooting trends have resulted in disagreement about whether the frequency of mass shootings has risen, there is clear evidence that the media’s use of the term mass shooting has increased significantly over recent decades (Roeder, 2016). [Boldness Added] Unfortunately, the ambiguity in how mass shootings are defined and counted may result in increased media coverage influencing public perception without better informing our understanding of the prevalence of mass shootings or their determinants, trends, social costs, or policy implications.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/mass-shootings.html

Your attention to detail, nolu, in all matters is commendable. You are a definite asset to this forum as a channel to clarity. Thank You for your many contributions.

There were 71 mass killings in 2016.

There were 38 lightning fatalities in 2016.

In 2016, there were 37,806 deaths in motor vehicle accidents in America.

So in 2016, you were 995 times as likely to die in a vehicle accident than by lightning.

And in 2016, you were only 532 times as likely to die by a motor vehicle accident than you were to be killed in a mass shooting.

Deaths by lightning are only 0.1% of the number who die in vehicle accidents.

Deaths by mass shootings are only 0.19% of the number who die in vehicle accidents.

We are talking about vanishingly small numbers of deaths from lightning or mass shootings.

BTW, you don't have that much less chance of dying while rock climbing in America or Canada than of being struck by lightning or killed in a mass shooting.

Quora: How many people die rock climbing each year? ...:

I just found these 2013 numbers in a quick search. You could do comparable searches for dying by slipping in a bathtub or shower or dying by electrocution from kitchen or bathroom gadgets and you'd probably get more fatalities than from lightning or from mass shootings.

We are talking about vanishingly small numbers of deaths from lightning or mass shootings.

Yes, we are ...

I did not bring up the subject.

I only responded to a faulty analogy.

Have you even known me to pass up a chance not to?

You could do comparable searches ...

Thank you.

But I will pass on that if you don't mind ...

I only responded to a faulty analogy.

You and Neil were arguing over very very tiny percentages of annual deaths in America. Vanishingly small.

I've never known a person shot in a mass shooting. I've never known 500 vehicle fatalities. And I've never known a person struck by lightning.

We all generally have much better things to worry about than lightning or mass shootings. Like car accidents, heart disease, strokes and cancer.

It's discouraging we allow the pols to stage these little political pillow fights on these peripheral issues that simply do not affect the vast majority of the population. It's almost like it is a deliberate tactic of the two-party duopoly to keep the peasants busy.

Perhaps you recall the old Wizard Of Id comics. Strange how they dragged that one out for years.

Slow day - Eh?

I like comparative statistics.

It's somewhat comforting to know how many different ways the universe would like to kill you and what its main methods of eliminating us are.

We make almost a cult out of these percentages in the modern era. And some of them are vastly exaggerated in studies and official attention compared to the much larger inventory of preventable deaths that government might take an active safety role in.

Here's a bit of Kochtopus material that is actually quite good, neutral as far as libertarian philosophy goes (not likely to start any fights among various libertarian ideological factions).

Cato Institute: Speed Doesn’t Kill: The Repeal of the 55-MPH Speed Limit, 5/31/1999

You can see why it appeals to me since it punctures the idea of conventional wisdom being overturned in favor of systematic studies that support libertarian views on public policy like opposition to the federal speed limits imposed by Nixon. I know you recall the era.

You and Neil were arguing over very very tiny percentages of annual deaths in America. Vanishingly small.

That's actually not true.

I made an observation comparing the number of deaths in "mass shootings" to those killed by lightning saying they were similar. I've made this observation elsewhere to counter the illusion put forth by gun grabbers about mass shootings being an "epidemic" and how people claim to be afraid to go shopping because there might be a mass shooting at their mall.

Gatlin, I guess because he doesn't care about gun rights, decided that this was an opportunity to slam a libertarian because, you know, we libertarians are demon spawn and all, so he got on his high horse and tried to attack me by suggesting that "mass shooting" deaths were in fact far more common than lightning deaths citing some stats and seemingly assuming that a "mass shooting" was any shooting incident in which more than one bullet leaves a gun. When I pointed out the common but non-standard definition of "mass shooting" was a single shooting incident in which at least 4 people die by gunfire, he threw a hissy fit because it didn't fit his attack narrative and it was me, as a libertarian, lying and twisting stats and redefining terms and so on, because that's what we conniving demon spawn libertarians do when we are backed into a corner with no hope of escape.

So the entire argument -- not a discussion or debate -- began because Gatlin, rather than addressing and agreeing with my 2rd Amendment point just wanted to score personal points in bashing a libertarian. That is all it was.

TC, you are correct about the numbers of deaths due to lightning and "mass shootings" (using the more conservative definition of 4+ deaths in a single incident, or something similar to differentiate them from targeted murders and what not) are both "vanishingly small", and that is, to me, true even if one form of death is 10x more than the other if the larger number is still only a fractional sliver compared to the size of a country of 320 million, though I don't consider the MS/Lightning death ratio to be that far apart. I think I said some where the numbers were "on par" which Gatlin chose to define as "equal to" as part of his personal anti-libertarian bashing effort, but which I have always defined in that context as "on similar scale". If I meant "equal to" I would have said so. And in the "vanishing small" context I would consider even a 10x difference to be "on par" **if** both are highly unlikely to occur with any single person.

I.e. I'd consider a drop of gasoline to be "on par" with 1/10th that amount absorbed by a piece of paper, but I would not consider 10 gallons of gas to be "on par" with 1 gallon.

But leave it to Gatlin to ignore the pro-gun point coming from a demon-spawn libertarian and instead seize on a perceived opportunity to act out his obsessive-compulsive anti-libertarian fetish, and fall flat on his face in the process.

So no, this was not really about arguing over tiny numbers. This was simply Gatlin at his most embarrassing worst.

I've never known a person shot in a mass shooting. I've never known 500 vehicle fatalities. And I've never known a person struck by lightning.

I've known of people via personal links killed by lightning, gunned down with a shotgun and killed in a car accident. None close to me though.

We all generally have much better things to worry about than lightning or mass shootings. Like car accidents, heart disease, strokes and cancer.

Precisely true!

It's discouraging we allow the pols to stage these little political pillow fights on these peripheral issues that simply do not affect the vast majority of the population. It's almost like it is a deliberate tactic of the two-party duopoly to keep the peasants busy.

Well, us libertarians are demon-spawn and must be stopped somehow. The world hangs in the balance. What good it is to restore justice, eradicate corruption and spread freedom all over the world if there is even one demonic libertarian running around demanding his right to smoke a naturally occurring plant?

Perhaps you recall the old Wizard Of Id comics. Strange how they dragged that one out for years.

That was one of my favorites, though Calvin and Hobbs is, for me, the hands-down best comic of all time.

we libertarians are demon spawn and all,

What I like about Libertarians is leave me alone and I will leave you alone. Let me live my life and you live yours.

The thing I don't like about libertarian philosophy is it treats moral and immoral as equal it seems to me.

Last year there were 334 mass shootings resulting in 606 deaths. Overall there were 10,982 firearms homicides, not suicides, just murders.

I just think the number of those 10,982 deaths by rifle is worth noting: 403 or 03.7%.

What I like about Libertarians is leave me alone and I will leave you alone. Let me live my life and you live yours.

The thing I don't like about libertarian philosophy is it treats moral and immoral as equal it seems to me.

The thing I don’t like about libertarians is that they never exercise the fundamental principle of primum non nocere. I find libertarians to be overly impetuous. They consistently act too quickly without thought or care. While they continuously demonstrate that they neither believe in or exercise the thought of first, to do no harm, they definitely should.

Primum non nocere is a Latin phrase that means "first, to do no harm" and is one of the principal precepts of bioethics that all medical students are taught in school and is a fundamental principle throughout the world. Another way to state it is that, "given an existing problem, it may be better not to do something, or even to do nothing, than to risk causing more harm than good." It reminds physicians to consider the possible harm that any intervention might do. It is invoked when debating the use of an intervention that carries an obvious risk of harm but a less certain chance of benefit.

The guy in the video below has a good explanation of the dangers of libertarianism and why he chose to abandon the philosophy. The unique perspective from his personal involvement in libertarianism is fascinatingly educational.

Libertarians should never be in political power where they will cause more harm than good because they will react selfishly in their own personal interest when it would have been better not to do something, or even to do nothing, than to risk causing more harm than good.

Think about it …

Gatlin, I guess because he doesn't care about gun rights,

You guessed wrong - This is not true.

I am definitely a very strong believer in the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States because It protects law-abiding citizens from the government’s infringement on our right to keep and bear arms. Our Founding Fathers felt this right was so important that they made it part of the Bill of Rights. They insured that the right to keep and bear arms was the personal and fundamental right of all citizens.

God bless America and keep the “anti-government” extremists Libertarians, who are critical of a great deal that government does, at bay.