Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

tilario t1_je67mfi wrote

don't jinx us you twat! 😉

237

citrus_mystic t1_je6dndy wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#2,456,361)

/u/thosethingstodo - “This doesn't fit the definition of a mass shooting for this map. 4 or more people need to have died from the shooting to be on this particular map.”

(Edit) Google/Wiki: “There is a lack of consensus on what constitutes a mass shooting, but most definitions include a minimum of three or four victims of gun violence, not including the shooter, in a short period.”

2

Chimbo84 t1_je6juik wrote

This really doesn’t mean anything. It’s not like RI policies or gun control are better or mental health services are better. I say we’ve just been lucky which we all know is barely a notch above “thoughts and prayers” on the effectiveness scale. This is not something to celebrate.

7

7x7x7 t1_je6l2bx wrote

306 mass shootings is less than 1 per million people. RI not having one is likely just due to statistics unfortunately. Gun violence is a plague that impacts the entirety of the country, even if there are none in RI.

17

IMeanYouNoHarmYet t1_je6mbel wrote

Impressive, very nice - now let's see the infographic on mob hits.

10

climb-high t1_je6ps3l wrote

Replying to Chimbo84 (#2,458,412)

Absolutely allow people to celebrate that there hasn’t been a mass shooting in their state. Come on.

Edit; yes it’s likely more about statistics due to our low population, but still, go us even if it’s a spurious statistic

2

Allopathological t1_je6qj5i wrote

Shut the fuck up you’re gonna jinx us you moron delete this

68

upcountry_degen t1_je794tw wrote

It is worth noting RI has a couple of measures in place that many other states do not: A 7 day waiting period which serves as a cool down period, but it also is time in which the paperwork must be signed off on by the purchasers local police department. In many of these mass shootings law enforcement has been familiar with the shooter, but shooter didn’t have a record which flags on the 4473 (form filled out for Federal background check) so they were able to purchase firearms legally. In the case of RI the local PD can deny the sale if the person doesn’t have a criminal history, but is known to have issues that haven’t involved arrest (psych, substance abuse, etc) and would be concerning for firearm purchase. The only exception to this is if someone holds a CCW, however those require a substantial amount of vetting in RI including qualifying with a firearm, 3 references with notarized letters, finger prints, meeting with local PD etc.

49

glennjersey t1_je7ceof wrote

Be sure to remind the state legislature of this as they try to justify further firearm restrictions every legislative session; solving a problem that doesn't exist.

10

BigDaddyCoolDeisel t1_je7fl3s wrote

Replying to Chimbo84 (#2,458,412)

Meh... RI has about as robust a social safety net as you can find in the United States. Parental leave, comparatively high minimum wage, child care, TDI, TCI.

It certainly isn't a "fuck you. You're on your own." state. Maybe that helps?

10

HighPlainsDrifting t1_je7ko6c wrote

Replying to glennjersey (#2,464,652)

Yeah true. I wish they would focus that energy on something productive, like putting on-duty officers inside all schools. I honestly thought the total would be higher. 306 since 09. And im willing to bet over 95% of these are gang related with illegal firearms. 95% of those are pistols, not even rifles. The "assault weapon" debate is ridiculous on its face.

−1

sbaz86 t1_je7ohfr wrote

Replying to upcountry_degen (#2,463,966)

This does make me feel just a little better. Granted, it’s not perfect and if someone truly wants to do something, you really can’t stop them, but at least we are doing better than some states who will give guns to anyone with a pulse.

9

MilsurpSmurp t1_je7oie4 wrote

Quick, make all of the gun owners in Rhode Island felons!

​

Oh wait. Already happened.

5

deathsythe t1_je7p9mp wrote

Replying to Pleasant-Champion-14 (#2,467,171)

*isn't

FTFY, because the FBI begs to differ

In 2019 (last publicly released data from what I can gather) we had 25 murders that whole year, and less than half of them of them were with firearms.

None of them were with rifles of any kind (contrary to the push for an "assault weapons ban" rifles quite literally are not a problem here) - more people were killed by knives (7), bludgeoning instruments (6), and hands and feet (2) than rifles of any kind, not just so called "assault weapons".

12

chrisct625 t1_je7piod wrote

Only 2 things come from RI, lobstahs and mobstahs

31

OrganizationPutrid68 t1_je7q2np wrote

New Hampshire has a slightly higher population and is a Constitutional Carry State. Your point is?

5

Lunaesa t1_je7qa7e wrote

Seriously, don't curse it.

2

sbaz86 t1_je81vdh wrote

Replying to khais (#2,469,081)

While I do understand and respect your opinion, I would just rather be safe than sorry. I have a few elementary aged kids, I do worry. People applying shouldn’t receive a hold back for a license for no reason, and I also think people should be able to “appeal” any hold backs, but I would rather have those safe guards than not have them. I am a pro gun person, I just don’t think “everybody” should have them. Who should and who shouldn’t, and up to who’s discretion? Great question and I don’t have all the answers, but I think where we are is a good start to a huge problem.

2

hcwhitewolf t1_je821vp wrote

Replying to degggendorf (#2,466,432)

I'm gonna help you out here Deg cuz I think some people misunderstood your comment and were reporting it.

Aged like fine wine = good, meaning Deg hopes this post remains true for a very long time. Likely in reference to RI having no documented mass shootings since 2009, and hoping that continues for the foreseeable future.

Aged like milk is the bad one.

12

7x7x7 t1_je86yki wrote

Replying to Bagabundoman (#2,467,136)

Yea, it’s likely a combination of factors (as everything is). Population, general political leanings, firearm ownership rates, etc which would cause the difference between RI and ND. ND is conservative and rural so likely higher firearm ownership rates, plus the events in North Dakota could stem from oil field layoffs or long hours. Who knows. I would just caution that the lack of mass shootings in RI doesn’t mean we are better than CT or MA since it’s a national issue.

4

Gunrunner79 t1_je8lpwk wrote

Weird flex, but okay 🤷🏻‍♂️

−5

knob-turned-past-uhf t1_je8q06r wrote

Replying to sbaz86 (#2,467,290)

Per a quick check on Wikipedia the answer is that most are suicides. This has been a long-time trend, that is well known, well studied and has had almost no action taken on it. In no small part because it is not a "sexy" political issue, nor is it something well represented in the news.

> n 2018, the most recent year for which data are available as of 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics reports 38,390 deaths by firearm, of which 24,432 were by suicide.

5

sbaz86 t1_je96ory wrote

Replying to knob-turned-past-uhf (#2,475,539)

I’m sorry, but what the fuck does this have to do with what’s above. I see what you’re saying, most gun violence is actually suicide, okay. What we are discussing is that “95% of school shootings (school shootings is the main keyword here) are gang related with illegal firearms.” You didn’t bring anything relevant to that. Thanks for the suicide rate of gun deaths, but not even remotely close to what the discussion is about. Are 95% of school shootings gang related? Are 95% of school shootings with illegal firearms? From my understanding, and again I don’t have anything to back it up, just what I have gathered over the years from news outlets, is most of these are lone-wolf shooters who actually have legally owned guns. I want to see where this statistic is, not the suicide rate. Thanks anyhow.

1

mtnstoseaside t1_je981p8 wrote

I called both senators and my rep as well today and basically said it’s only a matter of time before we have one in RI. Dear god will our congress do literally anything? I can’t even imagine what would have to happen for the total dereliction of duty to stop.

−4

hypochondriac200 t1_je9ehsm wrote

There was a mass shooting at a senior living facility in Westerly in 2019. 4 people shot but that included the shooter so I guess it didn’t make this definition. But you do see it on some lists.

2

degggendorf t1_je9kikw wrote

Replying to upcountry_degen (#2,463,966)

> In the case of RI the local PD can deny the sale if the person doesn’t have a criminal history, but is known to have issues that haven’t involved arrest

Is there any public info about how often that happens?

Anecdotally, I have heard about different town's police captains (or maybe town charters or something?) and whether they subscribe to a "shall issue" or "may issue" philosophy; like, whether the police just rubber stamp applications, or if they do actual vetting.

But that's also second-hand likely-misremembered info too, which is why I'm interested to learn more/be corrected.

2

No_Establishment_490 t1_je9oh2m wrote

Replying to TheHoundsRevenge (#2,478,456)

I’m assuming they’re including things like a Worcester shooting in 2020 where 6 people were shot - no one died. Which just helps prove the point that states w strict gun control laws prevent more deadly events.

There have been significant mass shootings in MA, but they don’t coincide with the dates that this map claims. It’s hard to fact check this map, it seems.

1

SNES_Punk t1_jea416y wrote

Replying to geffe71 (#2,471,424)

CA has the 7th lowest rate for gun violence in the country. 9 out of the top 10 states ranked for highest gun violence are red states while 10 out of the top 10 ranked for lowest gun violence are blue states.

Not saying this is a Republican issue, but...wait, yes I am. Scumbag republican lawmakers have the power to change that but they wont.

1

sbaz86 t1_jea8f4i wrote

Replying to HighPlainsDrifting (#2,482,108)

Yes sir, I’m sorry, you’re correct. Still, I’d like to see the numbers on that. I disagree, I think gang members kill within their own “world”, these mass shootings to my knowledge aren’t gang members. I can’t really recall any of them being gang members actually. Sorry for the mistake earlier.

1

HighPlainsDrifting t1_jeaanuw wrote

Replying to sbaz86 (#2,487,896)

I dont know how to say it more clearly but you still don't seem to get it. "Mass shootings" are calculated by there being multiple victims. A lot of gang-related shootings are groups of people shooting at other groups of people, HENCE THEY ARE CALCULATED AS MASS SHOOTINGS.

0

sbaz86 t1_jeafir1 wrote

Replying to HighPlainsDrifting (#2,488,442)

Fuck? No, I do clearly understand the definition of mass shootings, and I still stand by what I said. As far as them shooting at groups of people, don’t act like any of them have great aim, they shoot way more shots than they catching bodies. Gangs usually find a person out of territory, or it’s a targeted hit, whatever it is, but I hear less “mass gang death shootouts” than I do other mass shootings. I bet most of these mass shootings are actually school shootings, churches, supermarkets, movie theaters, college campus, military base, etc, wherever, I think they’re more lone wolf style in public places, not gang related. That’s all I’m saying, and until I see numbers, that’s my opinion. I respected yours, I just disagree with it. Now, do you get it?

0

SNES_Punk t1_jec376j wrote

Replying to Desperate_Expert_952 (#2,502,501)

Rather than being passive-aggressive. Would you care to explain the complexities behind this? Because to me it sounds like the step in the right direction is either banning civilians from possession of guns, or require mental and physical testing, insurance, and quarterly accountability reports.

1

sbaz86 t1_jec81jr wrote

Replying to SNES_Punk (#2,504,738)

BOMB! All Keebler cookies, the grahams, the peanut butter dreams, fudge stripes, big fan of them all. Seems like you share the same taste, stay munching my friend.

2

newbiePVD t1_jec9v94 wrote

It takes effort to prevent mass shootings in our schools & decrease gun violence in the community. Hope & luck is not enough. Suggest follow Moms Demand Action-RI on facebook. check https://momsdemandaction.org/events.

1

Desperate_Expert_952 t1_jedahuv wrote

Replying to SNES_Punk (#2,512,129)

To back up a bit. Law and policy change or establishment of laws and policies is to tackle some problem or wrong. Example: people are upset other people take their belongings. Solution: create laws against theft and prosecute those that commit theft possible with restitution and punitive jail time etc. we don’t create laws without some form of end in mind.

With that said. Are you looking to stop violence and murder? Do you just not like guns? You said earlier “it would be a step in the right direction” what direction is that? What solution are you in theory stepping to?

1

SNES_Punk t1_jee68iw wrote

Replying to Desperate_Expert_952 (#2,515,885)

>Are you looking to stop violence and murder?

I'd love that, but it's grossly unrealistic. I'd love to see a vast reduction in gun violence, most especially the epidemic of mass shootings that America is facing.

  • Strict gun ownership regulations wouldn't absolve us of gun violence completely, but it would allow less easily accessed firearms.

  • Banning civilian firearm ownership for the foreseeable future also wouldn't completely solve gun violence in the country either. However, I'll use Port Arthur as an example.

  • In April 1996, a shooter killed 35 people and injured 23 others in Port Arthur, Tasmania, Australia. That shooting forced the government to make huge changes to their gun ownership amendments, taking guns away from civilians. There have been 3 mass shootings in Australia in the 27 years since Port Arthur. There have been over 100 mass shootings in America since the beginning of this year.

>Do you just not like guns?

Actually the opposite. When I bought my house I was looking to buy a Sig p365 for home defense, but after Uvalde and having my daughter I reconsidered. I trust myself to be responsible and keep it locked up and unloaded, but then it defeats the purpose of having it for home defense if it's so difficult for me to access in a time sensitive situation like a home invasion.

>What solution are you in theory stepping to?

A theoretical reduction in gun violence in America based on a statistical analysis of other countries where the civilians do not have access to guns.

  • Police would be less hostile if they aren't in fear of a simple traffic stop erupting into a shootout

  • A reduction in mass shootings, gang shootings, crimes of passion, road rage shootings, accidental shootings, and gun-related suicides are all reduced

That's really all I want to see. I'm not naive - I know crimes will still be committed, I know there will still be psychos running around naked at train stations trying to stab people. I know illegal arms dealership is a real occurrence. But a reduction in the epidemic of gun violence in America, and only America, is the goal that I'd like to see our government reach.

I'm not saying you're insinuating this at all, but I feel compelled to say it anyway given its such a talked about topic; the second amendment was created for the purpose of suppressing a tyrannical government. People feel if they take guns from us, the government has all the power.

Maybe I'm a nihilist, but I think we're all long passed the point of combating the government. They may not outnumber us, but they sure as hell outdo us in available tech.

  • Better weapons

  • Better armor

  • Better surveillance technologies

  • Tanks/Choppers/Jets/Drones

  • Better training

If we were to step up to the government, they'd squash us like bugs. We all allowed them to stockpile defenses after 9/11 in the wake of passionate Civil defense that we have no chance against them if they decided to start rounding people up like Nazi Germany.

So, to conclude this; there's no viable reason I can see why American civilians should be able to own guns.

Sorry for the long-winded wall of text. I tried to be as concise and clear-cut as possible but I honestly don't blame you in the least if you gave up reading it halfway through.

1

KaleAlternative3500 t1_jeejkfh wrote

Replying to keithjp123 (#2,460,253)

Do you have any sources on meth use in RI? I know that there were a couple of big bust on dealers from out of state recently, but my understanding was that RI has been pretty insulated from meth compared to opioids.

I couldn't find any recent reports.

1

Professional-Ask-630 t1_jegavgm wrote

Replying to IMeanYouNoHarmYet (#2,458,897)

honestly who cares about mob hits or drug-related shootings? The mobs not whacking regular good people, and as far as the petty drug-related shootings... thats its own bubble. The mob is pretty silent and clean these days but I will say it's very sad when you have low income areas so harshly affected by a couple of degenerates who want to fight over there small potatoes turf and subsequently otherwise innocent people get hurt. stray bullets and all that. The real problem in this country is these mass shooters who target defenseless children

3

vodkanipples t1_jegvc0w wrote

 "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

2

dollrussian t1_jeh4cfq wrote

Replying to glennjersey (#2,541,074)

oh my god, shut UP. Our right to free speech is about to be taken away by the RESTRICT act anyways.

literally, shut up. kids are DYING and all youre doing is whining about guns because you have to just have your boom boom toy that you have no reason to own besides the false sense of security it gives you.

why i'm even bothering to respond to you, i dont know. have your hunting riffles, have your hand guns, but somethings gotta give.

4