Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston



Thursday, September 19, 2013


The usual knee-jerk reaction to calls for background checks and limiting sales of some weapons can be found on the usual Howl-of-the-Wolf-type conservative/libertarian blogs, where any sort of proposed sensible regulation is likened to a government take-over of Mom, Apple Pie, and My Beautiful 2nd-Amendment Right To Buy a Rocket Launcher of My Very Own If I G-D Want To.

These irrational nutters who see no correlation between the highest number of deaths by firearms (U.S.A.) and the country with the most firearms in circulation (U.S.A.) continue to pretend that there is absolutely nothing we exceptional Americans can do to make our military facilities, our grammar schools, our high schools, our movie theaters, our places of worship, our shopping malls, our inner cities, and our homes safe.  They are willfully blind to the indisputable fact that in countries where gun ownership is restricted or banned, there is the least amount of firearm deaths.  They pretend there is no connection whatsoever in any way, shape, or target form to that truth.

So long as they are responsible gun owners, they believe, there is nothing to be done about the continuing escalation of the massacre of the innocents in this very violent and very gun-crazed country that owes this bloody heritage to the criminal elements in it--the N.R.A. (IMO) and its bought-and-paid-for Congressional lackeys-- Republicans and Democrats.

BTW, these are the same folks who believe, however, that stricter regulations or outright banning of legal abortions WILL STOP all abortions, the slaughter of innocents, in their view.  But stricter gun laws and outright banning of some firearms WILL NOT STOP the slaughter of innocents.  But...but, they'll argue, the right to bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution! (Ignoring the "well REGULATED" part.)


The Relationship Between Gun Ownership and Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981–2010 

"We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides."

America’s Irrational Relationship To Guns

Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker:

"Now, one can get depressed having won an argument without winning a political fight, but that misunderstands the nature of political fights. Once the argument is won—gay marriage is a fine recent example—the action will go with it, sometimes far more quickly than one expects. 

The broken consensus is vulnerable to simple aging, at the very least. There are no more grounds for despair about gun control than there were grounds for despair about the persistence of lynching in the face of the fight against that horror. 

The truth is known, obvious and inarguable. It cannot be said too clearly, and it cannot be said too often: guns make gun violence happen, gun-control laws make it stop. Anyone who says that this is “dubious” or “uncertain” or “as yet undecided” or “up for argument” is a liar or a fool or—well, the third possibility is that he is a true “American exceptionalist”; that is, someone who believes that Americans are so intrinsically, genetically homicidal that the same gun laws that have alleviated violence and ended massacres in Canada and Australia and Great Britain and Europe won’t work here. The only way not to know that is to decide not to know anything. People can do that for a long time, but not forever."

The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibited the sale of firearms to several categories of individuals, including persons under eighteen-years of age, those with criminal records, the mentally disabled, unlawful aliens, dishonorably discharged military personnel, and others. In 1993, the law was amended by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which mandated background checks for all unlicensed persons purchasing a firearm from a federally licensed dealer.
However, critics maintain that a so-called "gun show loophole," codified in the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, effectively allows anyone, including convicted felons, to purchase firearms without a background check.
As of 2013, there were no federal laws banning semi-automatic assault weapons, military-style .50 caliber rifles, handguns, or large capacity ammunition magazines, which can increase the potential lethality of a given firearm. There was a federal prohibition on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines between 1994 and 2004, but Congress allowed these restrictions to expire.


States With Fewer Gun Laws Are the Most Violent, Study Finds

20 Deadliest Gun States

States with strict gun laws found to have fewer shooting deaths

BOSTON | Thu Mar 7, 2013 3:37pm EST (Reuters) - States that have more laws restricting gun ownership have lower rates of death from shootings, both suicides and homicides, a study by researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University found. States with the most laws on gun ownership, including Massachusetts and New Jersey, have 42 percent lower rates of death from guns than those with the least restrictions, including Utah and Oklahoma, according to the study, published on Wednesday in the online edition of JAMA Internal Medicine.


What more do the people who ignore these facts need to read and internalize before they can see that MORE GUNS = MORE GUN DEATHS?

The question now is "What will we rational Americans do about it?"  

I am not ready to give up, even if the thugs in the N.R.A., who do not listen to their own constituents on background checks and do all in their greasy power to halt any kind of sensible check on our irrational gun culture, even if they hope people like me do.


Cathy S. said...

After every mass shooting there follows immediately the question, What was his motive? Was he a disgruntled employee, did he have a personal grudge against someone, was it political, was he depressed, was he mentally ill?

In my view this endless discussion of motive is pointless. He did it because he could! Even with the documented encounters he had with law enforcement and his own attempts to seek help for his mental problems, he was able to easily obtain a gun and carry out the 20th mass shooting during Barack Obama’s presidency.

Mr. Obama was criticized for speaking to the debt ceiling issue at the same time that he made remarks about the shooting. He was said to be insensitive. What about us as a nation? It doesn’t seem to bother us enough to do something about it. We have our moment of silence and go on.

BB-Idaho said...

We often hear the argument about
well-armed Switzerland. My relatives there don't have any and the stats show the Swiss have 0.43
weapons per person compared to 0.
95 per person in this country.

Rational Nation USA said...

I have given up. Not because I have a problem with, or don't recognize the logic of more effective regulation of firearm sales, semi automatics, universal background checks, waiting (or cooling) off periods, high capacity magazines, universal firearm safety training. or other sensible public safety issues. Oh no. It is because the real loons and the NRA ain't listening. It's like pissing into a strong wind.

That and the loonies on the left are not much better. Perhaps no one in an official government position has come out and advocated a total ban on firearm ownership Shaw, but the sentiment to do so is held and enunciated by some.

Those in what I call the reasonable middle are likely sitting back and watching the debate once again unfold. Waiting for the sreaming banshees to get it.

Capt. Fogg said...

Keeping guns away from dangerous, unstable people is obviously necessary, but the failure to be good enough at it has many causes I can't blame on the gun lobby.

What I would argue with is what I see as oversimplification. Are we assuming that we can make all those guns go away by fiat, that the majority will allow that to happen?

History proves that what the public wants the public will get and when that thing is illegal controlling it becomes nearly impossible. Best route as I see it is to regulate who drives, who drinks, who smokes dope and who owns guns more than controlling alcohol content and the number and horsepower of cars one can buy.

I see a problem with the statistics. Are we selecting an exclusive factor without consideration of other factors that may determine how that factor affects the equation?

Let's look at Chicago, my old home town. Very strict gun laws and one has to apply for a photo ID license that allows you to buy guns or ammunition. Up until just now, no handguns, no concealed weapons permits in Chicago. BUT The highest gun death rate in America.

BUT! look at it by precinct and you'll notice that the determining factor is something else. Some of the safest places in America are certain neighborhoods in Chicago while others account for nearly all of the murders.

There are other factors at work and they count more than the simplistic number of guns. The prime factor in Chicago seems to be drug related gang wars which of course are also the result of efforts to restrict something the public wants.

Not recognizing this is simply bad use of statistics. basing policy on this alone is like trying to make cars safer only by reducing their number.

Capt. Fogg said...

Next look at El Paso - currently the safest US city. Texas gun laws? The Old West rides again.

Across the bridge in Juarez it's more dangerous than Kabul and of course they have more strict gun laws than the US.

No, statistics don't lie, but few people are willing or able to use them properly and it's my feeling that unless we look at all the pertinent factors we get correlations designed to illustrate a political assertion rather than to identify the parts of a problem we can do something about.

Anonymous said...

Cathy S said:

"In my view this endless discussion of motive is pointless. He did it because he could!"

there are at least 150 million gun owners in the country who "could", but don't, so your point is rather pointless.

Mental health is a factor in many of these incidents. We need to do more to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

Shaw Kenawe said...

A number of U.S. cities have gun homicide rates in line with the most deadly nations in the world.

If it were a country, New Orleans (with a rate 62.1 gun murders per 100,000 people) would rank second in the world.

Detroit's gun homicide rate (35.9) is just a bit less than El Salvador (39.9).

Baltimore's rate (29.7) is not too far off that of Guatemala (34.8).

Gun murder in Newark (25.4) and Miami (23.7) is comparable to Colombia (27.1).

Washington D.C. (19) has a higher rate of gun homicide than Brazil (18.1).

Atlanta's rate (17.2) is about the same as South Africa (17).

Cleveland (17.4) has a higher rate than the Dominican Republic (16.3).

Gun murder in Buffalo (16.5) is similar to Panama (16.2).

Houston's rate (12.9) is slightly higher than Ecuador's (12.7).
Gun homicide in Chicago (11.6) is similar to Guyana (11.5).
Phoenix's rate (10.6) is slightly higher than Mexico (10).

Los Angeles (9.2) is comparable to the Philippines (8.9).

Boston rate (6.2) is higher than Nicaragua (5.9).

New York, where gun murders have declined to just four per 100,000, is still higher than Argentina (3).

Even the cities with the lowest homicide rates by American standards, like San Jose and Austin, compare to Albania and Cambodia respectively.

Yes, it's true we are comparing American cities to nations. But most of these countries here have relatively small populations, in many cases comparable to large U.S. metros.

The sad reality is that many American cities have rates of gun homicides comparable to the some of the most violent nations in the world."


Anonymous said...

Beware biases sources. The Daily Beast's list is whacked.

Go here:

It is Wikipedia, but you can follow the link to its source, which is FBI crime statistics.

Another tell that the Daily Beast has an agenda? They left off Washington DC, the gunniest gun violentest place in the USA, and also home of some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.

Maryland, Delaware and California are also high on the list.

So libs can comfort themselves with Daily Beast lists, I'll go with FBI statistics.

Jim said...

The pro gun people also say, that some measures (like mental evaluations) are to much of a government intrusion for practicing one's constitutional right to buy a gun. I disagree.
Part of the problem, is it's a numbers game. The more guns, the more gun shot deaths.
About 30,000 gunshot deaths a year, which include suicides.
Another problem is prosecution. Many incidents are labeled "accidents" when they are negligence.
The 2nd amendment (which I do not read as an individual right) says nothing about types of guns, ammunition, or other accessories. We can certainly pass laws regulating, or banning certain weapons, ammunition, etc.. All other rights are subject to limitations and regulations. The 2nd amendment is no different.
When a clear majority of the people want some kind of gun control, the Congress refused to pass the last bill put on the floor. The only way around that, is public outcry and voting those representatives out of office.
I suggest checking ""
a site that reports daily (multiple times a day) on gun crimes and incidents. An anti gun site, but you can also get the pro gun view point there.

FreeThinke said...

Some reliable data from non-partisan sources worth considering published today at Kurt Silverfiddle's Western Hero:

First, Some Facts, Then Some Questions.

"In the 30 years prior to the end of March of this year SEEVENTY-EIGHT PUBLIC MASS SHOOTINGS occurred in the U.S. ... according to a report issued that month by the Congressional Research Service. These crimes don’t include gang-related killings or domestic disputes ...

"The mass slaughters listed in the report caused the deaths of FIVE-HUNDRED FORTY-SEVEN people over the same three decades prior to the end of 2012.

"That’s less than a TENTH of ONE PERCENT of the 559,347 people the Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates were murdered in America [during that time frame]. (Bloomberg)

"Indeed, the murder rate, like all violent crime, has been falling, according to FBI statistics. The murder rate is now what it was in 1969, and the overall violent crime rate has fallen to 1979 levels. So, to sum up, we have seen NO INCREASE in mass shootings, and an overall DECREASE in MURDER and other violent crimes in the past thirty years."

Now, the Questions:

"What is the immediate, compelling reason to push for gun control now? It can't be driven by logic and statistics. ...

"Why no clamor for law enforcement at all levels to disarm known criminal elements and focus in on illegal arms trafficking -- and KNOWN terror groups?

"What proposed law would have prevented the DC Navy Yard shooting?"

Anonymous said...

Actually, these mass murder incidents are on the rise. Check it.
I wouldn't consider SF's blog to be non partisan.

BB-Idaho said...

If the body politic won't or can't address the problem, Darwin's Law of natural selection
will. Probably take a few generations, though.

Anonymous said...

A few days ago in these august forums, Octopus said the following:

"Today, I am removing the Swash Zone from Cyberspace. I no longer have the time for distractions such as this. I may stop by from time to time to comment casually but can no longer afford to engage in crap like this."

I just visited the Swash Zone and it is still there.


Shaw Kenawe said...

The answer to your questions, Mr. Free Thinke, is this:

More guns = more gun deaths.

It's that simple.

Countries that have strict gun regulations and fewer guns in circulation have fewer gun-related deaths. Period.

The U.S. has THE MOST GUNS in circulation than any other civilized country on the planet, and the U.S. has THE MOST GUN-RELATED DEATHS than any other civilized country in the world.

I can't help anyone who deliberately refuses to understand that.

I don't care what happened in 1977 or 1997 or 2007. What is happening right now are frequent massacres by all sorts of people, including mentally ill people.

Listening to and reading the lame excuses offered by 2nd Amendment fanatics is tiring, and I just don't buy their excuses anymore.

I hold them responsible for the continuing carnage.

We ABSOLUTELY can change this.

And people who refuse to understand this are the people who contribute to the slaughter of innocents.

Yes, I'm passionate about it. Wouldn't any American who sees the deaths caused by our irresponsible gun laws feel the same way?

Shaw Kenawe said...

Anonymous @6:22, I don't know. The Swash Zone is an open forum, and if you ask politely, you may get an answer from (O)CT(O)PUS yourself.

Shaw Kenawe said...


A majority of Americans want something done.

A malevolent minority and the thugs of the N.R.A. have held the lawmakers hostage on this issue.

They disgust me.

Shaw Kenawe said...


Yes, D.C. has the highest rate of firearm crimes, but it is also next door to Virginia, which does not have strict gun regulations. Very easy to obtain guns over the border.

I still stand by the fact that MORE GUNS = MORE GUN DEATHS.

That is an incontrovertible fact.

Shaw Kenawe said...


These sort of gun deaths HAVE increased since 2007. Meanwhile the N.R.A. pushes its agenda which enriches the gun manufacturers. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this thing out.

Anonymous said...

I still stand by the fact that MORE GUNS = MORE GUN DEATHS.


Of course. More cars = more car deaths

More swimming pools = more swimming pool deaths

More knives = more knife deaths

FreeThinke said...

What I indicated in my wildly satirical verse "Idiocy Reigns" subtitled "The Case FOR Chemical Weapons" and the statistical evidence Kurt Silverfiddle has researched and neatly presented asks a very important question by implication:

Why is death resulting from a PARTICULAR KIND of violent assault more significant than death resulting from any and all OTHER sources?

You yourself, said, Ms. Shaw, when we were talking the other day about the international ban on chemical weapons that appeared to be forcing us to wade into yet another futile exercise in death and destruction in the Middle East, "Dead is dead. I don't understand why one kind of weapon is worse than any other."

Those may not have been your exact words, but I'm sure I have the sense right.

Anyway, those words of yours inspired me to write IDIOCY REIGNS (The Case FOR Chemical Weapons) that very day.

Since I believe we agree that death is death I'd like you and others to at least consider answering Kurt's excellent question:

Given the statistical fact that deaths by gunshot wounds account for ONE TENTH of ONE PERCENT of all the murders that occurred in the past THIRTY years, why are you and the others so particularly wrought up about THAT particular KIND of violent death?

The TONE of the anti-gun lobby appears quasi-hysterical and that faction has, apparently, lost sight of the many OTHER types of violent activity that cause death and far outnumber deaths specifically from gunshot wounds, so WHY not get EQUALLY upset and focused on eliminating ALL potential murder weapons?

It's hard for me to understand why anti-gun lobbyists don't see why Conservative-Libertarians tend to see a Power Agenda behind all the impassioned rhetoric.

Anonymous said...

Love the way these freaks justify death by pointing out these deaths are such a small minority of the total.

Rational Nation USA said...

Could you please explain, using some semblance of reason, how Free Thinke and others asking thses questions are justifying death Anon @ 9:32 PM?

Anonymous said...

No sense that's not what I said.

(O)CT(O)PUS said...

FreeThinke: "Some reliable data from non-partisan sources worth considering ..."

I wouldn't characterize the source as either reliable or non-partisan. See, the Silverfiddle has a rather tarnished reputation in some quarters, specifically a rather unpleasant history at the Swash Zone some years ago. Stuff like mass plagiarizing (over 8,000 words) and violating the confidentiality of private email exchanges with one of the writers of the Swash Zone - publishing those emails without the knowledge and permission of the correspondent. Non-partisan, indeed: The Silverfiddle even tried to scam another blogger on the conservative side of the aisle. When you turn over a rock, the silverfish scatter.

I.H.G. said...

Given the statistical fact that deaths by gunshot wounds account for ONE TENTH of ONE PERCENT of all the murders that occurred in the past THIRTY years, why are you and the others so particularly wrought up about THAT particular KIND of violent death?

When you're a rabid ideologue, you would justify 30,000 deaths a year, wouldn't you...if an airline had the reputation of killing that many Americans a year,,,you and your kind would be marching with torches and pitch forks to put the effers out of business for reckless slaughter...yet you have the balls to suggest and pretend that gun deaths are the same as any other death because dead is dead, and there's nothing anyone can do about it? You're wrong of course...dead is you who has no problem with the shameful slaughter, so long as your ideology wins over reason...

We Hope For Bitter Things and We Live In An Ashcan said...

Why can't your frightwing pals understand that more guns = more gun deaths. Japan has practically no private gun ownership and they have the lowest incidents of gun deaths, and that the gun laws here were loosened--thanks to the nra, and since then the rate of massacres has increased.

The frightwingers will argue to the death that firearms are harmless to a culture, even while 30,000 Americans a year, including the most deaths of children than any other country, die from them.

For those people, ideology trumps everything and they refuse to see facts.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for mentioning Japan. Even in the absence of firearms, they manage to have a higher suicide rate than the US.

I visited the silverFiddle site, and his statistics are from the FBI.

Shaw Kenawe said...


It has been my experience that when any discussion on guns and gun deaths occurs, most people want to ignore the simple fact that more guns in circulation mean more gun deaths.


Suicide is a cultural phenomenon in Japan. It is considered an honorable way to end one's life is one has brought disgrace and scandal on one's family, country, or place of business. That has nothing to do with this discussion.

More information on the subject HERE.

FreeThinke said...

Insults, Libel, Slander, Distortions, Half-truths, Fabrications, willful Mischaracterization, Skewed Statistics and Propaganda zealously cranked out by ideologically driven "journalists" are the primary tools used by the Left to overcome Opposition.

These practices went on for decades largely undetected and unchallenged by our unsuspecting public. Then William F. Buckley -- for whatever reason -- published Man and God at Yale.

That erudite little treatise made a small-but-significant chink in the Armor of the Left and thus marked the Beginning of a sea change in Public Perception.

What so infuriates and outrages the Left is that they have been found out, and have thus been forced to meet meaningful opposition after having had virtually a Free Ride to Victory for nearly forty years prior to the birth of the modern Conservative Movement.

FIghting fire with fire may have some virtue, BUT things have degenerated to such an extent now that Left and Right have become MIRROR IMAGES of one another.

What leftists see in us Conservative-Libertarians today may very well be a REFLECTION of who and what THEY, the leftists, have ALWAYS been.

Unpleasant, isn't it?

Anonymous Anonymous said...

shaw your pal free stinke always takes over yur comment section and tries to turn it into a trough of propaganda against liberals. His blind spot on the right's own dissemination of misinformation, lies, and slander makes him an unreliable commenter.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Jim@4:21 PM, Sept. 19, 2012,

Good comment. I agree. Thanks for coming by and giving us your comment.

Anonymous said...

"Suicide is a cultural phenomenon in Japan."

Agreed. So what about the other 31 countries who have a higher suicide rate than we do?

It is encouraging that you mention culture. Keep looking, it's all around you, and may just perhaps be a contributing factor to our nation's woes.

Anonymous said...

Please give us the details about the nefarious silverfish character.

Can you link us to his deeds of malfeasance?

FreeThinke said...

Here it is:

The Perfect Rx for Achieving Absolute Peace and Safety on Earth - A Ten-Step Guide to Perfection

1. Destroy all nuclear weapons and destroy all knowledge of how to reproduce them, then jettison the raw materials that might lead to their rediscovery and resurgence.

2. Destroy all bombs of every description along with the knowledge and raw materials that enable bombs to be produced.

3. Destroy all firearms of every description, and make it a physical impossibility to reproduce them,

4. Destroy all swords, daggers, knives, box cutters and all machinery that produces these things.

5. Eliminate the airplane

6. Eliminate the automobile

7. Make it illegal to own a baseball bat or any other item that might be used as a club or anything that could be used as a blunt instrument capable of crushing a skull human or otherwise.

7. Eliminate all swimming pools.

8. Prohibit the practice and performance of all contact sports.

9. Cut everyone's hands and feet off at birth, so they will never be able to wield a weapon of any kind.

10. Sterilize every male and female, so that our accursed species will become extinct.

Then -- and ONLY then -- will the planet be safe from harm.

Want to reach
The Happy Side?
Just take a dose
Of Cyanide.

~ Myanmar Shave

(O)CT(O)PUS said...

Anonymous (at 11:27 AM): "Octopus,
Please give us the details about the nefarious silverfish character. Can you link us to his deeds of malfeasance?

The incidents occurred during the months of April and May 2010. The actual word count of plagiarized material: 8,527. Please note: Plagiarism is unethical and illegal. Posting confidential communications is unethical. There are no 'Leftist" versus "Rightest" viewpoints with regards to betrayals of trust and confidentiality. Plagiarism is plagiarism, and wrongful conduct is wrongful conduct, period! Any argument to the contrary is a non sequitur.

The nefarious silverfish character expunged his blog of all posts prior to 2011. Nevertheless, parties who witnessed this hijacking (including saved correspondence) will be posting their accounts at the Swash Zone sometime next week.

Anonymous said...


You are correct, of course, about trust and confidentiality.

I did some poking around. The character you mention provides links to his archives here:

It is at the bottom of the page, so you have to wade through some filth to reach the links.


(O)CT(O)PUS said...

Many thanks, Anon

Shaw Kenawe said...

"So what about the other 31 countries who have a higher suicide rate than we do?"

You are hijacking my post on America's irrational relationship to guns for your own purposes, Anon.

Suicide rates in other countries have nothing to do with the 30,000 gun deaths here.

Why don't you tell us which country has comparable gun deaths.

Anonymous said...

Shaw Kenawe,

We are in violent agreement over your tautologous and obvious point that more guns loosely correlates to more gun deaths.

If we could wipe guns from the face of the earth, then obviously we would eradicate gun deaths.

The overall murder rate, however, adds to the discussion:

Look at that list. Many countries with much stricter gun laws than us have a higher murder rate.

Bashed over the head with a steel pipe, gashed open with the jagged end of a bottle, or shot to death, the result is the same. Granted that guns allow one to kill more efficiently.

BB-Idaho said...

Another NRA poster boy just lost his job. The fellow got into an off-duty bar fight, drew his pistol and shot himself in the hand
back in 2011. It were his psychotic
videos that got him fired, though.
What an exemplary figure for 2nd Amendment rights.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Mr. Free Thinke,

All the other civilized countries on this planet deal with all the other risks you listed.

But the other civilized countries are not even CLOSE to having the number of gun deaths that we have in this country. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

That's because the other civilized countries do not have the number of firearms in circulation that the United States has.

Are you attempting to justify the 30,000 firearm deaths each year in this country by saying we cannot do anything about it?

Duckys here said...

@FT -- These crimes don’t include gang-related killings or domestic disputes ...

Why? Are those victims just props?

It's a hard problem to manage in states like Massachusetts when they can be trucked in from states like Georgia or Virginia where you can pick up a 9 mm. at the convenience store.

I notice the NRA opened a new branch office in Chicago the other day.

Anonymous said...'s+impossible+Perry+Como+YouTube

Amerigo Vespucci

George Whyte said...

That conservative who runs the Geeez blog is spamming your blog Shaw pretending she's Anonymous. Watch out for her and her friends. They are devious tricksters.

Shaw Kenawe said...


I've been warned by others who read this blog about that. Thanks.

Craig said...

FreeThinke reports,

"The mass slaughters listed in the report caused the deaths of FIVE-HUNDRED FORTY-SEVEN people over the same three decades prior to the end of 2012.

"That’s less than a TENTH of ONE PERCENT of the 559,347 people the Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates were murdered in America [during that time frame].

Meaning, 547 or 1/10th of 1% of the 559,347 murders occurred during, what the statisticians determined, mass (gun) slaughters. Over the 30 years of this study, roughly 400,000 (~13,000 p/year) of the 559,347 murders were of the non- mass slaughter gun murder variety.

FreeThinke's reading of the data is,

Given the statistical fact that deaths by gunshot wounds account for ONE TENTH of ONE PERCENT of all the murders that occurred in the past THIRTY years, why are you and the others so particularly wrought up about THAT particular KIND of violent death?

See what he did there? Using the "mass slaughter" percentage to reflect all deaths by gunshot. FT is either, not sharp enough to see his glaring error, or he's using

Insults, Libel, Slander, Distortions, Half-truths, Fabrications, willful Mischaracterization, Skewed Statistics and Propaganda

I mean, really, the nerve.