Quantcast

Do Mass Shooting Tragedies Happen More Often During Democratic Administrations?

Transquesta 2013/01/22 21:16:28
Related Topics: Opinions, Mass, Shooting
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Please cite evidence to support your opinions.

E.g:

http   mjcdn motherjones com preset_51 fatalities3_0 png
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Big One 0909 2013/01/24 23:44:29
    No.
    Big One 0909
    +1
    I don't think it really matters all that much.

    It is my understanding that the numbers overall are down, but it does not seem so, and that is because the news spreads faster and better than it used to.
  • Transqu... Big One... 2013/01/24 23:48:44 (edited)
    Transquesta
    +1
    When I first started this poll I was only interested in the raw numbers--i.e., the number of occurrences (as opposed to body counts) per administration. I'm convinced that the numbers are in 'favor' of the Democrats, but other than that I assign no importance to the coincidence.

    Still, the whole thread--especially the vitriolic responses I've gotten from liberals who somehow imagine that I'm trying to 'insinuate' something nefarious--has gotten me curious about the cyclic nature of tragedies-by-nutter. What is it about shifts in power, to dem or repub, which sets off the nutters? Is this the political equivalent of the much ballyhooed 'full moon'?
  • Erok 2013/01/24 06:05:46
  • Erok Erok 2013/01/24 06:08:39
    Erok
    +1
    Sandy Hook was a lie as far as the "assault rifle" thing was played.....they forgot to tell you the AR-15 was in the guys car and he had been denied the purchase of one because of his background check....so he killed his mom to get his hands on hers.
  • HipJipC 2013/01/24 01:01:05
    No.
    HipJipC
    +1
    Not enough information here to deduce anything accept how evil some humans are.
  • nicesteve 2013/01/23 23:26:02
    Yes.
    nicesteve
    +1
    The Democratic party is more interested in controlling guns than they are
    in controlling crime and insanity. And that always backfires on them every
    solitary time. Won't they ever learn?
  • Transqu... nicesteve 2013/01/24 00:24:55
    Transquesta
    +2
    No. Not when the objects of their control desires have nothing to do with guns. Dems don't give a damn about guns, and they don't give a damn about the innocent victims of violence. They want to reduce if not outright eliminate our capacity to defend ourselves against them.
  • T A nicesteve 2013/01/27 00:29:44 (edited)
    T A
    +2
    As Transquesta points out, the anti-gun folks have absolutely no problem with guns, semi-auto rifles, fully automatic rifles , or drones outfitted with missiles for that matter. This is evidenced by their desire and willingness to use them against peaceful people who simply possess guns not for use by the collective against the individual and for making war, which they support wholeheartedly. This is about who owns who. They believe the collective ("represented" by the government) owns the individual rather than the individual owning himself. To that end, they wish to remove the ability of the individual to protect himself from any member of the collective.
  • Transqu... T A 2013/01/27 02:06:07
    Transquesta
    +1
    Couldn't have said it better myself!
  • T A Transqu... 2013/01/27 02:43:48
    T A
    +1
    Thanks, though I'm pretty sure you have. :0)
  • Maj. C. D. Hardy 2013/01/23 20:05:08
    Yes.
    Maj. C. D. Hardy
    +1
    the punishments are usually much more leient ao
  • joe keeney 2013/01/23 15:39:25
    Yes.
    joe keeney
    +1
    They always screw up.
  • Jim 2013/01/23 15:13:01
    No.
    Jim
    +1
    No, they just make the media spotlight more often because it plays well with the liberal/progressive agenda. Forget the real issues, shuffle those under the rug, just beat the liberal drum, and repeat the same liberal distortions over and over until the ignorant masses fall in line like the drooling idiots that they are.
    Don’t believe me: just spend a half hour watching the news on CNN, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, ABC or any of their east and west coast affiliates and if you don’t see it, then you are probably one of the drooling idiots they are preaching to.
  • Gloryanna's Quill 2013/01/23 14:47:57
    No.
    Gloryanna's Quill
    +1
    Hell no. It is a reflection on what society has become though.
  • jmc07806-PWCM-JLA 2013/01/23 14:04:20
    No.
    jmc07806-PWCM-JLA
    +1
    But it really depends on the main stream media's spin on it in order to figure what most people believe.
  • glen 2013/01/23 13:52:28
    Yes.
    glen
    +1
    It would appear so .
  • Kat ♪ ~BTO-t-BCRA-F~ ♪ 2013/01/23 07:40:08
    Yes.
    Kat ♪ ~BTO-t-BCRA-F~ ♪
    +1
    the attitudes are different, the government more invasive.
  • Michael S. Kat ♪ ~... 2013/01/23 07:57:05 (edited)
    Michael S.
    +1
    The problem with that explanation is that the federal government doesn't get less invasive with Republican administrations either...it's just gotten more and more invasive from one administration to the next. For instance, everything that came with the "War on Terror" made the federal government far more invasive than it was under Clinton (and Obama has continued the trend in the same area as well as others), yet the casualties went down during Bush's administration.

    The standard partisan Democratic response is, "Hurr hurr, the crazy Republicans shoot everyone up when they don't get their way," except the vast majority of mass shooters have been liberal, undefinable, or apolitical, so that argument doesn't make sense either.

    Then again, if any non-coincidental correlation exists, maybe it's indirect? Presidential administrations just get worse every time, but state-level party politics often follow national party politics. At least in the ideological sense, Republicans are a lot less invasive than Democrats at the state level except for bedroom-related issues...so there might be a stronger argument there, but it still seems like a stretch.

    My viewpoint on all these mass shootings is that they're most likely a result of psychiatric medications provoking extremely violent tenden...

    The problem with that explanation is that the federal government doesn't get less invasive with Republican administrations either...it's just gotten more and more invasive from one administration to the next. For instance, everything that came with the "War on Terror" made the federal government far more invasive than it was under Clinton (and Obama has continued the trend in the same area as well as others), yet the casualties went down during Bush's administration.

    The standard partisan Democratic response is, "Hurr hurr, the crazy Republicans shoot everyone up when they don't get their way," except the vast majority of mass shooters have been liberal, undefinable, or apolitical, so that argument doesn't make sense either.

    Then again, if any non-coincidental correlation exists, maybe it's indirect? Presidential administrations just get worse every time, but state-level party politics often follow national party politics. At least in the ideological sense, Republicans are a lot less invasive than Democrats at the state level except for bedroom-related issues...so there might be a stronger argument there, but it still seems like a stretch.

    My viewpoint on all these mass shootings is that they're most likely a result of psychiatric medications provoking extremely violent tendencies in a small subset of users, which mixes terribly with "glory-seekers," and the pharmaceutical lobby's influence results in these drugs being prescribed perhaps much more often than they should be. This seems to be a common denominator among the mass shootings, and I suspect it's also a characteristic that differentiates the US from other countries (both countries with similar and different gun laws), though I haven't looked at evidence for the latter. At the same time, I find it difficult to find any correlation between psychiatric medications and Presidential administrations, so if a real non-coincidental correlation exists between administrations and shootings, I'm missing a piece of the puzzle.

    (I suppose I could be missing something out of willful ignorance too though...more specifically, if the conspiracy theorists convinced of an MK Ultra connection happen to be correct, it would fill in a lot of blanks. After all, it would make more sense to manufacture a crisis when the administration is amenable to the "desired" solution.)
    (more)
  • Kat ♪ ~... Michael S. 2013/01/23 07:59:09
    Kat ♪ ~BTO-t-BCRA-F~ ♪
    +1
    It's a different invasive, republican governments don't demoralize everyone like democrats do.
  • Cat 2013/01/23 06:14:17
    No.
    Cat
    +1
    It doesn't matter because most mass murderers aren't Democrat or Republican, they're just Evil.
  • Jeff Smith 2013/01/23 04:10:32
    No.
    Jeff Smith
    +2
    Actually I have no idea I do know for the first 4 years of Obama's rein everything was George Bush's fault the next 4 years will be blamed on assault rifles or the GOP. My question is when is Obama going to take responsibility for Obama
  • Idiot repubs 2013/01/23 03:31:38
    Yes.
    Idiot repubs
    +3
    It looks like republicans impotent anger is taken out on the innocent.
  • wilhelm... Idiot r... 2013/01/23 03:32:28
  • Michael S. Idiot r... 2013/01/23 03:37:09 (edited)
    Michael S.
    +2
    ...except that doesn't exactly fit the politics of the shooters themselves. Now, I wouldn't be so obnoxiously partisan and collectivist as to blame their politics for their insanity, but it's even more disingenuous to pretend they were Republicans and then blame "Republicans' impotent anger" for their violence.
  • Constitution Believer 2013/01/23 03:28:09
  • anne.k.... Constit... 2013/01/23 04:15:50
    anne.k.murphy
    +2
    The shooting on the college campus today was a dispute that escalated. Shootings like that happen every day in the ghettos of America. This sort of shooting is nowhere near on the same par as a whacked out psycho randomly shooting living targets at a school.
  • Constit... anne.k.... 2013/01/27 00:03:57 (edited)
  • Transqu... Constit... 2013/01/27 00:20:09
    Transquesta
    And yet Illinois has some of the toughest anti-gun laws in the country. 'Odd' how that happens.
  • Constit... Transqu... 2013/01/27 00:31:25
  • WolfEyes 2013/01/23 03:14:14
    Yes.
    WolfEyes
    +2
    yes. you're seeing it now. there's no spin and it's not being " made up " it's just happening. try explaining that one away.
  • shadow76 2013/01/23 02:38:40
    Yes.
    shadow76
    +2
    Apparently so, could it be the stress?
  • Michael S. shadow76 2013/01/23 03:31:54 (edited)
    Michael S.
    +1
    That was actually my first thought, but it doesn't seem to fit...I mean, life in the post-Soviet 90's under Clinton was a lot simpler than life in the the post-tech collapse, post-Enron, post-9/11 world of the George W. Bush administration, and IIRC the middle class has been shrinking from one administration to the next.
  • shadow76 Michael S. 2013/01/23 15:33:29
    shadow76
    +1
    Must be all that liberal caring about people!
  • Yes.
    One of Y'shua's,דָּנִיֵּאל
    +2
    Seems so, the EVIDENCE anyways POINTS in that direction...I'll cite your post as evidence....as with "whipnet's" also..there covered my bases...
  • Kidasha 2013/01/23 01:49:59
    Yes.
    Kidasha
    +2
    BUT, Republicans aren't all that clean either. 80% of US serial killers were republicans. example: Ted Bundy, Dennis Rader, Jefferey Dahmer. Both parties have their perks.

    http://scrapetv.com/News/News...
  • Transqu... Kidasha 2013/01/23 01:53:35
    Transquesta
    +1
    Good points!
  • Michael S. Kidasha 2013/01/23 03:11:04 (edited)
    Michael S.
    +2
    That's really interesting! I wonder how many of them actually have/had any ideology at all, and how many just felt more shielded behind conservative, clean-cut personas...
  • rk 2013/01/23 00:34:28
    Yes.
    rk
    +2
    Makes you wonder who is behind them
  • tytyvyllus rk 2013/01/23 01:44:25
    tytyvyllus
    +1
    well I wouldn't want to be in front of them
  • PandoraBoxe 2013/01/23 00:24:50 (edited)
    No.
    PandoraBoxe
    +1
    has nothing to do with it. Crazy is as crazy does regardless of politics! oh, and if you include WAR. then more death has taken place under the watchful eyes of W and the repubicans!

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/11/01 03:30:58

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals