Yes, you are correct, I am saying that the majority appear to be revenge related, and the total is not very many, which of course is a good thing.  Yes this is just my own personal opinion based on reading everything I could find on the subject, not only from our own local news sources, but also international web news, psychological analysis of professionals, and some other information sources I have.

I agree that I am not an expert in this area, even if I think I know what I am talking about.
 

I'd like to see your face on that one. I don't think I have ever heard a bigger bullshite statement in my life. So let's see your source on that whopper. Last mass shooting I remember God being mentioned, the shooter targeted Christians.

Daft.

You need to read about some real studies on threat-assessment data instead of making crap up in your mind.

 

Did you ever see such a messed up situation in your whole life, son?

I agree that you should read up and also that there's loads. Problem is, the statistics - without arguing about the fact that there are a lot of them, which is beyond dispute - are skewed because of bias or positioning.

I'll be glad to continue the discussion, but I am not sure the Dump Trump thread is the best place for it. There's so much more ammo available for Trump, we are sidetracking and hijacking that discussion.
 

I'd disagree with that unless it can be proved that the targeting is from a pure religious standpoint; most violent opposition of gays doesn't stem from religious people unless they are liars. Truly religious people dislike the "sin" (as they view it from their particular standpoint or religious flavour) but love the "sinner" nonetheless. I put sin and sinner in quotes to separate from my particular viewpoint and make it generic.
 

I guess it depends where the data comes from, and what is used to determine the parameters. In the U.S., a mass shooting is defined at 4 or more injuries or deaths, not including the shooter. I think you are going to find it a difficult slog, because [your] conclusion of fisticuffs being the only result discounts the possibility of stabbings, blunt object use, knives, bottles, strangulation, high heels used as a weapon (a woman killed her boyfriend with her killer heels); lack of bullet wounds is not better in the terms of overall violence, but I would assume you are going to use that to support your theory that all guns should be outlawed.

I'll state again, it isn't going to happen in the U.S., no matter how impassioned a the plea made or the data gathered. No one is taking my guns, period.

What may happen, though, is a better effort made at determining who is at risk for perpetrating violent acts, mass or otherwise. They do it because they are delusional, ignored - generally social outcasts who feel like they don't matter or nobody likes them.

I mentioned once before that over 60% of gun deaths in this country are suicides. Sometimes this number gets buried in the statistics when people are trying to make the point that guns should be outlawed. Well, I have known a half a dozen people at least who committed suicide, out of them only one killed himself with a gun. One hung himself, three girls took overdoses and one drank himself to death. The guy who killed himself with the gun tried to drink himself to death, but it didn't work. I suspect had he not had a gun he would have found another way, because he was severely depressed and his family ignored him; I was too far away from him to be of any help, and I am sorry to say that I didn't realise his family would turn their backs on him after I told them that Brook was not well.

I think you are going to have to look at a more broad spectrum of data than 2015, unfortunately.





 

 

Did you ever see such a messed up situation in your whole life, son?

Yes it is, in fact, the election cycle actually never ends.  The day after the election, the next one begins.

Presidential term is 4 years
Senate term is 6 years
Congressional term is 2 years

I think that there is also a setup so that only some of them are up for election at the same time, so that you don't risk ending up with a congress full of people who don't understand how it works.  Imagine if somehow you had all new people and no one knew the rules - pretty crazy.

The 2 year congress term is particularly problematic from a corruption perspective.  They have to spend nearly all of their time fund raising for the next election, so they are inherently open to being influenced by someone with a willingness to donate to the campaign fund.  It doesn't help that if they don't spend the money on the campaign, they can keep it - tax free.

My education was in chemical engineering and I am more of a business man, so don't be surprised if you see errors in how the offices are setup.