The phrase "Active Shooter" is one that gets me.

If someone is an "Inactive Shooter", they would not be shooting.
I have no idea what "Passive Shooter" would mean.

@BD66 Its the sort of soft language that the late George Carlin referred to in one of his performances.

This is logic.

@Petter Nah, it is a question based on semantics.

Missing from your list are the 56million estimated slaughtered following Columbus reaching the Americas.
[theguardian.com]

@FrayedBear Smallpox , measles, and the flu killed most of those 56 million. Being armed wouldn't have helped the Native Americans very much.

@BD66
armed
adjective
Furnished with weapons of offense or defense; furnished with the means of security or protection.
Furnished with whatever serves to add strength, force, or efficiency.
Having horns, beak, talons, etc; -- said of beasts and birds of prey.
The Century Dictionary.
More at Wordnik

I think that you can be armed by having a vaccination that has prepped your immune system to fight the invading pandemic. Though I suspect that pandemics are only pandemics because defense against them is not known.

@FrayedBear Being vaccinated would certainly have helped them more than their bows, arrows, and spears.

@BD66 Interesting numbers, but you're comparing apples and oranges. Just because authoritarian regimes have a predilection for genocide does not mean a democratic nation should not seek to improve itself by minimizing mass shootings.

When the number one cause of death among children is guns, ahead of disease, ahead of car accidents, ahead of drowning, ahead of drug overdoses, you know our gun laws are way out of whack.

And don't think for one minute that the small arms circulating in our civilian population are the only thing keeping us from sliding into authoritarianism. It is rule of law that is doing the heavy lifting there. Rule of law backed up by professional prosecutors and police.

Happily, we have no need to go up against our own military. Why? Because it's under civilian command. If we don't like the commander in chief, we can fire him/her (as we did with Trumpty Dumpty).

@Flyingsaucesir You bring up many points. I will do my best to respond to each one:

>>Just because authoritarian regimes have a predilection for genocide does not mean a democratic nation should not seek to improve itself by minimizing mass shootings.

Our murder rate is way below what it was in the 1990's. If there was no crisis in the 1990s that would lead us to curtail our 2nd amendment rights, there is no crisis today.

>>When the number one cause of death among children is guns, ahead of disease, ahead of car accidents, ahead of drowning, ahead of drug overdoses, you know our gun laws are way out of whack.

The place where the homicide rates for children are highest are cities like St. Louis, MO, Baltimore, MD, New Orleans, LA, Detroit, MI, and Cleveland, OH. What do those cities have in common? Democratic mayors and Democratic DAs. Perhaps the solution is to vote the Democrats out of control of those cities rather than suspending the 2nd Amendment rights of those of us living in safe communities?

>>And don't think for one minute that the small arms circulating in our civilian population are the only thing keeping us from sliding into authoritarianism. It is rule of law that is doing the heavy lifting there. Rule of law backed up by professional prosecutors and police.

I guarantee you they are a big factor that keeps us from sliding into authoritarianism. Look at the following examples of government overreach:

Randy Weaver's Family

Whenever the government overreaches its power, someone (who may very well be nuts) stands up to the government, and the majority of the population will side with that individual. The ATF and the BLM had to change their practices when confronted with relatively small groups of armed people who stood up for what they believe to be their "rights"

>>Happily, we have no need to go up against our own military. Why? Because it's under civilian command. If we don't like the commander in chief, we can fire him/her (as we did with Trumpty Dumpty).

That's 100% true. And there is another good poing. With an armed population, the President and the generals have to treat the lives of each soldier as something that's very important and should be preserved. If you look at the death tolls of US soldiers vs Japanese, Chinese, Russian, German, and even French and British soldiers in WWI, and WWII. The US suffered far fewer deaths. Why? Because an armed population would not stand for their boys being used as cannon fodder.

@BD66 The murder rate in the 90s was too high, and it's still too high. There is no crisis today? Tell that to the parents of the slain children of Columbine, Parkland, Sandyhook, Uvalde, Nashville, and dozens of other massacre sites.

It is state law that has preeminence in gun regulation. The cities you mentioned are all either located in red states or border red states. Red states have higher rates of gun violence than blue states. Much higher.

I don't think it is fair to characterize the incidents at Ruby Ridge and Waco as examples of government overreach. In both cases, paranoid individuals were either known to be or thought to be stockpiling illegal weapons. Government agents attempted to serve lawful search or arrest warrants. The individuals in question had a duty to comply with a lawful order, but they refused. All the unfortunate resulting events stem from that unlawful refusal to comply with lawful orders. Did the government handle the situations in the best way possible? Sadly, no. But we cannot blame the mass suicide of members of an apocalyptic cult on officers attempting to uphold the law of the land. Rule of law means comply and work within the system. Get a lawyer and go to court. Don't pick up a gun and start shooting. That's just stupid.

@Flyingsaucesir You need to watch documentaries about what really happened at Ruby Ridge and Waco, TX. The Government entrapped Randy Weaver to begin the whole Ruby Ridge Debacle,

[justice.gov]

and the Branch Davidians did not commit suicide.

@BD66 Yeah, they did.

So what, he killed 77 people, but how common are such attacks in Norway, compared to the US? I bet that mass killings are much more rare, due to stricter gun laws.

@Castlepaloma So?

@Petter add to that the PtArthur Tasmania massacre in 1996.

[en.wikipedia.org]

follow the money. They go where there is money to be made.

@HippieChick58 Indeed, that is why much "journalism" is actually sensationalist garbage.