Time Magazine Cover 8-19-19 Mass Shooting Disinformation

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

The current tactic against gun rights is to use mass shootings. Take an event like Dayton or El Paso and then tell people that it has happened 254 times so far this year. This is meant to scare people into accepting new restrictions from UBCs, licensing, taxes, AWBs to full confiscation.

The Time magazine cover is meant to use the recent shootings and the 254 count number to express the idea that this is 'Enough" and support the call for 'something'.



The image is very powerful, with names of cities we know and some that we live in. But it also is misrepresents the issue. When you say there was a mass shooting, you'd assume that multiple people were killed. Not so. Below I removed a number of cities.



The cities I removed were for mass shootings where no one was killed. Actually, out of 254 events, there were 127 where there were no fatalities. Now removing them doesn't erase the hurt of the people injured, but I think that in most peoples minds, if there was a mass shooting it implies that someone was killed.

If we go by the standard FBI definition of a Mass Shooting- that more than four people were killed, we get a much different cover as seen below. (Edit, for a random CO in front of 'College" and it has been pointed out that shootings are not murders, true, but sort of missing the point of invoking mass murders like Dayton and El Paso0>



Not quite as impactful as the original cover is it? Once again, removing the cities doesn't wipe away a lot of misery. The issue is that if you invoke Dayton and El Paso and then pivot to the 254 count, you are not understanding the real problem. The shooters in those two kinds of events are fundamentally different- and will have different solutions than the vast majority of the other 254 mass shootings. To show this I modified the cover: (Edit to take out a KC, MO)



Five cities:
Chicago
Baltimore
Washington D.C.
Philadelphia
St. Louis

These five cities are responsible for 20% of the mass shooting events in the US so far this year. They represent less than 2% of the US population, but 20% of the events. All of them have Democratic mayors. Chicago, as part of Illinois has very strict gun laws similar to what is being proposed nationally. To purchase a gun or even ammunition you have to have a state issued FOID (Firearms Owner ID) card. Baltimore, as part of Maryland has outlawed standard capacity magazines, has Extreme Risk Protective Orders (Red Flag Law), requires handgun owners to get training and a license, and limits handgun and modern sporting rifles purchases to one per month.

Time magazine, the MSM, and the left don't understand the problem and are offering solutions that have been tried and failed. Pushing these failed policies in vain virtue signaling will not prevent the deaths that they say they are so keen on stopping. By pushing divisive, unimplementable laws that affect law abiding citizens and don't address the problem, they are making the problem worse- and that puts the blood on their hands.

[Biggy]

BARELY HAD the massacres in El Paso and Dayton ended than the clamor began for the government to "Do Something" about weapons used in mass shootings.
Once again there were impassioned calls for "common sense" gun control, above all for more sweeping background checks before guns are purchased. "Background checks," declared Michael Bloomberg, the former New York mayor, are "the two most important words in this debate." Leading Democrats, including Senators Sherrod Brown, Chuck Schumer, and Bernie Sanders, demanded that Congress pass a law mandating a "universal" background check on all gun purchases. So did President Trump, tweeting that both parties must "come together and get strong background checks."

In reality, the overwhelming majority of gun sales already require a background check. Anyone who buys a gun from a licensed dealer — whether in person or online, in a store or at a gun show — must be cleared by the FBI before the weapon is delivered. Every year the federal government conducts more than 25 million such background checks — more than 320 million since the system was put in place. The only time the requirement doesn't apply is when someone acquires a gun locally from a private individual, such as a friend or relative. That's the so-called "gun show loophole," which has nothing to do with gun shows and isn't a loophole, since it doesn't apply to anyone in the business of selling guns.

Enacting "universal" background checks would mean forcing private citizens, people who aren't gun dealers, to go through the FBI before they can sell a gun to their next-door neighbor or their sister-in-law. That would impose a considerable burden on the personal affairs of private individuals. But would it "do something" about mass shootings?

This isn't a new question, and the answer shouldn't be in doubt. Yet somehow it remains a mystery to a lot of people, even those concerned with public affairs.

In December 2015, two terrorists carrying AR-15 rifles and semiautomatic pistols murdered 14 victims and wounded 22 others in a mass shooting at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, Calif. The next day, the US Senate voted on a bill to expand the federal background gun check system to cover private sales. One of the senators vosting no was Florida's Marco Rubio.

In an interview the next morning on CBS, he explained that such a law wouldn't have prevented the latest mass shooting. Neither of the San Bernardino killers was on any database; their background checks had come up clean. When co-host Gayle King asked him about the "many other cases" where such a law could have prevented a massacre, Rubio politely replied that such cases don't exist.

In "none of the major shootings that have occurred in this country over the last few months or years that have outraged us," he said, "would [new] gun laws have prevented them."

A Washington Post staffer urged the paper's Fact Checker to scrutinize Rubio's claim, "suggesting that it was almost certainly incorrect." So the Fact Checker pored through "reams of data," examining every mass shooting since the Sandy Hook school slaughter in Newtown, Conn. Its conclusion: Rubio was exactly correct. No proposed new law could have prevented those massacres. (In two cases, the background check didn't work because of a clerical failure.)

Mass shootings are not caused because Congress hasn't passed "universal" background checks. In almost every instance, the killers buy their guns legally. "Would stronger background checks have stopped El Paso and Dayton?" asked CNN on Monday. Based on everything known so far, no.


Everyone is horrified when a gunman rampages, turning a school or club into a bloodbath. Everyone wants to "Do Something" to make it stop. But there's no easy way to end gun massacres, and universal background checks would fix nothing.
Everyone is horrified when a gunman goes on a rampage and turns a school, a church, a nightclub, or a music festival into a bloodbath. Everyone wants to "do something" to make it stop. But guns are already among the most intrusively regulated products in American life, and only a vanishingly tiny fraction of the firearms owned in the United States is ever used to commit a crime. Mass shootings themselves account for only a minuscule fraction of US homicides — and gun violence in America is much less common than it was 25 years ago.

If there were a "common sense" gun regulation that could unfailingly foil mass shootings, we would have adopted it long ago. There isn't. We are morally bound to try and prevent such carnage, but common sense — and history — say more gun control won't do it.

[fledge]

FromMy, good original work! Thanks for sharing this.

[SteyrAUG]

[flenna]

Wait, another communist propaganda rag putting out misleading information?? Say it isn't so....

[Wake27]

The current tactic against gun rights is to use mass shootings. Take an event like Dayton or El Paso and then tell people that it has happened 254 times so far this year. This is meant to scare people into accepting new restrictions from UBCs, licensing, taxes, AWBs to full confiscation.

The Time magazine cover is meant to use the recent shootings and the 254 count number to express the idea that this is 'Enough" and support the call for 'something'.

The image is very powerful, with names of cities we know and some that we live in. But it also is misrepresents the issue. When you say there was a mass shooting, you'd assume that multiple people were killed. Not so. Below I removed a number of cities.

The cities I removed were for mass shootings where no one was killed. Actually, out of 254 events, there were 127 where there were no fatalities. Now removing them doesn't erase the hurt of the people injured, but I think that in most peoples minds, if there was a mass shooting it implies that someone was killed.

If we go by the standard FBI definition of a Mass Shooting- that more than four people were killed, we get a much different cover as seen below.

Not quite as impactful as the original cover is it? Once again, removing the cities doesn't wipe away a lot of misery. The issue is that if you invoke Dayton and El Paso and then pivot to the 254 count, you are not understanding the real problem. The shooters in those two kinds of events are fundamentally different- and will have different solutions than the vast majority of the other 254 mass shootings. To show this I modified the cover:

Five cities:
Chicago
Baltimore
Washington D.C.
Philadelphia
St. Louis

These five cities are responsible for 20% of the mass shooting events in the US so far this year. They represent less than 2% of the US population, but 20% of the events. All of them have Democratic mayors. Chicago, as part of Illinois has very strict gun laws similar to what is being proposed nationally. To purchase a gun or even ammunition you have to have a state issued FOID (Firearms Owner ID) card. Baltimore, as part of Maryland has outlawed standard capacity magazines, has Extreme Risk Protective Orders (Red Flag Law), requires handgun owners to get training and a license, and limits handgun and modern sporting rifles purchases to one per month.

Time magazine, the MSM, and the left don't understand the problem and are offering solutions that have been tried and failed. Pushing these failed policies in vain virtue signaling will not prevent the deaths that they say they are so keen on stopping. By pushing divisive, unimplementable laws that affect law abiding citizens and don't address the problem, they are making the problem worse- and that puts the blood on their hands.

Awesome. Mind if I use the images?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MountainRaven]

This one still has the CO from, "Highlands Ranch, CO". FYI.

ETA: And the, "five cities," one has six cities on it.

ETA2: And of those five (or six) cities, only one appears when using the FBI definition.

[26 Inf]

The current tactic against gun rights is to use mass shootings. Take an event like Dayton or El Paso and then tell people that it has happened 254 times so far this year. This is meant to scare people into accepting new restrictions from UBCs, licensing, taxes, AWBs to full confiscation.

The Time magazine cover is meant to use the recent shootings and the 254 count number to express the idea that this is 'Enough" and support the call for 'something'.


The image is very powerful, with names of cities we know and some that we live in. But it also is misrepresents the issue. When you say there was a mass shooting, you'd assume that multiple people were killed. Not so. Below I removed a number of cities.



The cities I removed were for mass shootings where no one was killed. Actually, out of 254 events, there were 127 where there were no fatalities. Now removing them doesn't erase the hurt of the people injured, but I think that in most peoples minds, if there was a mass shooting it implies that someone was killed.

If we go by the standard FBI definition of a Mass Shooting- that more than four people were killed, we get a much different cover as seen below.



Not quite as impactful as the original cover is it? Once again, removing the cities doesn't wipe away a lot of misery. The issue is that if you invoke Dayton and El Paso and then pivot to the 254 count, you are not understanding the real problem. The shooters in those two kinds of events are fundamentally different- and will have different solutions than the vast majority of the other 254 mass shootings. To show this I modified the cover:



Five cities:
Chicago
Baltimore
Washington D.C.
Philadelphia
St. Louis

These five cities are responsible for 20% of the mass shooting events in the US so far this year. They represent less than 2% of the US population, but 20% of the events. All of them have Democratic mayors. Chicago, as part of Illinois has very strict gun laws similar to what is being proposed nationally. To purchase a gun or even ammunition you have to have a state issued FOID (Firearms Owner ID) card. Baltimore, as part of Maryland has outlawed standard capacity magazines, has Extreme Risk Protective Orders (Red Flag Law), requires handgun owners to get training and a license, and limits handgun and modern sporting rifles purchases to one per month.

Time magazine, the MSM, and the left don't understand the problem and are offering solutions that have been tried and failed. Pushing these failed policies in vain virtue signaling will not prevent the deaths that they say they are so keen on stopping. By pushing divisive, unimplementable laws that affect law abiding citizens and don't address the problem, they are making the problem worse- and that puts the blood on their hands.

Thank you for taking the time to do that.

Would it be okay to use them?

How can we get this information in front of more people?

[MegademiC]

OP, this is excellent.
Thanks for taking the time.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I just updated the links in the post to new version of the 5 cities that removed a random Kansas City, MO (think I saw it as Washington, DC) and took out and extra "CO" in front of College for the FBI one. That was hard to see.

I know that cover backwards and forwards now

Feel free to pass it along. People on imgr have taken me to task for shootings and deaths being different. I get it, but I think it even makes the point. They are using mass murder events and conflating them with shootings where no one was killed. Yes, shootings are bad- but when you say that there are 254 mass shootings, how many people would guess that no one was killed in roughly half. PLUS a drive by shooting in a city isn't the same as a whack job taking a gun into a Walmart.

If they don't understand the problem, the solutions won't work. Plus, Illinois and Maryland having some of the wet dream law suggestions kinds of proves the point that if you are trying to stop these, maybe there are other ways that might actually be effective.