Mexico. Seriously? (Reply #60) - Democratic Underground

In the discussion thread: OK, so my last idea was not well received [View all]

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 04:18 PM

60. Mexico. Seriously?

Over those five decades, the United States had 90 public mass shootings, defined as shootings that killed four or more victims. Of the 170 other countries examined in the study, only four even made it to double-digits: The Philippines had 18 public mass shootings, followed by Russia with 15, Yemen with 11, and France with 10.
--http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/08/united-states-world-mass-shooters
from numerous articles referencing Adam Lankford's study on worldwide mass shootings.

Notice which country is not in the top 5?

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

89 replies	Author	Time	Post
OK, so my last idea was not well received [View all]	dumbcat	Oct 2015	OP
Good question	Duckhunter935	Oct 2015	#1
The British still use guns in hunting and sport. How do they keep gun violence among humans...	ChisolmTrailDem	Oct 2015	#2
That doesn't address the question asked	dumbcat	Oct 2015	#23
Well, for one thing, they don't use hand guns	Warpy	Oct 2015	#54
Canadians have hunting rifles	Aerows	Oct 2015	#81
Gun love is a sickness that's difficult to treat.	hunter	Oct 2015	#3
You didn't address the question asked	dumbcat	Oct 2015	#24
I think wanting to own a gun for anything other than utilitarian reasons...	hunter	Oct 2015	#51
Then, your answer to the question is	dumbcat	Oct 2015	#53
We don't.	enlightenment	Oct 2015	#4
So if I read your reply correctly	dumbcat	Oct 2015	#25
Yes, you're reading correctly.	enlightenment	Oct 2015	#75
Yes, that idea was properly not well received. However...	sudenlyseymour	Oct 2015	#5
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, but	dumbcat	Oct 2015	#26
I am as useless as so many others who have replied.	sudenlyseymour	Oct 2015	#84
We could look twice at those who feel the need to pose on social media with guns.	cwydro	Oct 2015	#6
No they don't. Just the ones you happen to remember who happened to do that.	Warren Stupidity	Oct 2015	#8
Every one of the most recent had pictures of themselves with guns.	cwydro	Oct 2015	#9
Cedric G. Prather	Warren Stupidity	Oct 2015	#11
I love people who cannot post without using profanity.	cwydro	Oct 2015	#12
'horseshit'? seriously? that is what you are responding to?	Warren Stupidity	Oct 2015	#13
It's a sign of class	dumbcat	Oct 2015	#43
I agree with you there.	cwydro	Oct 2015	#79
And hundreds of thousands did not	Duckhunter935	Oct 2015	#37
That is backwards logic, or would it be illogical?	uppityperson	Oct 2015	#21
After you look twice, then what do you do?	dumbcat	Oct 2015	#27
Oh fuck that. Every other country that had a mass shooting problem did the obvious:	Warren Stupidity	Oct 2015	#7
What kinds of limits and regulations?	LWolf	Oct 2015	#14
^^^This Post^^^	-none	Oct 2015	#16
That's far too sensible to ever work in this country.	Crunchy Frog	Oct 2015	#49
I know, but I can dream can't I?	-none	Oct 2015	#67
Message auto-removed	Name removed	Oct 2015	#69
Cars are, by law, licensed and insured to run on the street. Their purpose is transportation.	-none	Oct 2015	#76
Classy. And non-responsive	dumbcat	Oct 2015	#28
Sorry to say that happens a lot	Duckhunter935	Oct 2015	#40
Mexico has strict gun laws	Travis_0004	Oct 2015	#59
Mexico. Seriously?	Warren Stupidity	Oct 2015	#60
Overall homicides are higher in mexico	Travis_0004	Oct 2015	#62
Well go ahead and talk about anything other	Warren Stupidity	Oct 2015	#68
You require a permit to purchase a gun.	NutmegYankee	Oct 2015	#10
I like the Vermont and Maine procedures better...	Kang Colby	Oct 2015	#17
In practice all town Police Chiefs or First Selectman have requested references.	NutmegYankee	Oct 2015	#19
They both have vastly lower population densities than CT.	Crunchy Frog	Oct 2015	#55
That's the closest I've seen yet to an answer	dumbcat	Oct 2015	#29
I can try to explain Connecticut's laws	NutmegYankee	Oct 2015	#77
probably makes it easy for a sherrif to deny a gun permit to Blacks or any other person	Travis_0004	Oct 2015	#80
Considering that Connecticut doesn't have sheriffs, that won't happen.	NutmegYankee	Oct 2015	#82
Ban all guns! n/t	PowerToThePeople	Oct 2015	#15
Non responsive to my simple request	dumbcat	Oct 2015	#30
You have yet to answer what should be done to gun owners like Vice President Joe Biden,	kelly1mm	Oct 2015	#61
Ideally, turn over all his guns.	PowerToThePeople	Oct 2015	#70
Ok, I suppose that if passing laws (or in this case amending the constitution) is what you propose	kelly1mm	Oct 2015	#72
They are winning currently	PowerToThePeople	Oct 2015	#73
Man, I sure hope Vice President Biden, who you deem a domestic terrorist, is not our nominee	kelly1mm	Oct 2015	#74
What's your answer to the problem of guns coming across the borders if they're banned?	cherokeeprogressive	Oct 2015	#71
I think we just have to cut down on the number of guns	treestar	Oct 2015	#18
Non responsive to the question asked	dumbcat	Oct 2015	#31
this replies deals with "Many of -THESE- had -SOME- indication of -MENTAL ILLNESS-	HereSince1628	Oct 2015	#20
So, did all that long reply boil down to	dumbcat	Oct 2015	#34
No it boiled down to	HereSince1628	Oct 2015	#38
OK. Do you have an answer to the question posed in the OP?	dumbcat	Oct 2015	#41
I think focus on mental illness is mostly wrongheaded and hugely reliant on bigotry	HereSince1628	Oct 2015	#47
Well, thanks anyway	dumbcat	Oct 2015	#52
I'm not into the Manicheasim of yes and no of conservatives and	HereSince1628	Oct 2015	#57
I think we are in violent agreement	dumbcat	Oct 2015	#64
Yup. Conflating many problems into simple ones doesn't work.	uppityperson	Oct 2015	#45
E.O. Wilson says the dilemma of human existence stems from	HereSince1628	Oct 2015	#50
Here is the link to your last idea, rather than a reply I gave	uppityperson	Oct 2015	#22
This message was self-deleted by its author	dumbcat	Oct 2015	#35
Simple... Require them to become...	farmbo	Oct 2015	#32
You want to determine who is a potential danger to others	dumbcat	Oct 2015	#36
Yes... Read the the text of the 2nd Amendment	farmbo	Oct 2015	#42
You are still non-responsive to the question	dumbcat	Oct 2015	#44
Respectfully,it is responsive. I'm linking gun purchases to a 'well regulated militia'	farmbo	Oct 2015	#85
I do not know how to ID potential mass murderers	uppityperson	Oct 2015	#33
Thank you for the most direct, honest answer in this thread	dumbcat	Oct 2015	#39
No, you can't simply identify anyone who might potentially commit an act of violence	Crunchy Frog	Oct 2015	#46
Thank you for your thoughtful and honest reply	dumbcat	Oct 2015	#48
"I am not about limiting your rights and freedoms"? you wanted to give this power to teenagers on	uppityperson	Oct 2015	#56
That other post was a proposition	dumbcat	Oct 2015	#63
Thank you for acknowledging it was absurd. I wasn't sure, especially due to your replies saying	uppityperson	Oct 2015	#78
Granted, I don't like living in a gun saturated society,	Crunchy Frog	Oct 2015	#66
I posted a similar request yesterday. Here are the responses	Evergreen Emerald	Oct 2015	#58
Your question was much, much broader than mine	dumbcat	Oct 2015	#65
My answer is different	smilingwen	Oct 2015	#83
This ain't much different than your other pre-crime thread, huh.	Iggo	Oct 2015	#86
If you say so	dumbcat	Oct 2015	#87
I'm glad you agree.	Iggo	Oct 2015	#88
Freeedumb isn't strictly the domain of the right.	Sen. Walter Sobchak	Oct 2015	#89

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.