But we're talking about mass shootings in this thread. As I noted in a link earlier, the vast majority of mass shootings take place with legally purchased firearms.
What kind of mass shootings? Definitions vary dramatically.
The study cited in the NYT article defines a mass shooting as “multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms — not including the offender(s) — within one event, and at least some of the murders occurred in a public location or locations in close geographical proximity (e.g., a workplace, school, restaurant, or other public settings), and the murders are not attributable to any other underlying criminal activity or commonplace circumstance (armed robbery, criminal competition, insurance fraud, argument, or romantic triangle).”
That’s also how the FBI defines a mass shooting. And it matches what most of us think of when we hear the term - a deranged gunman blowing away strangers in a public place.
Call those Type A mass shootings.
But there’s a much more expansive definition used by the Gun Violence Archive, and adopted by much of the media. It includes shootings carried out during the commission of other crimes and in private residences.
There are around five Type A mass shootings a year. In 2018, there were nine mass shootings by this definition - the most ever.
Type A mass shootings are usually carried out with legal firearms. Background checks, waiting periods, restrictions on semi-automatic rifles, etc would likely reduce these types of shootings.
There are around 400 Type B mass shootings a year. In 2020, there were 610 mass shootings by this definition - the most ever.
Type B mass shootings are typically attributable to other criminal activities or competition. And they’re usually carried out using illegal firearms.
Both types are a consequence of America’s gun culture and insane number of firearms. But they’re very different in who they affect, how many fatalities they’re responsible for, and in what measures are likely to be effective in reducing them.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 06-04-2022 at 01:49 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
No offence Cliff but I’m not sure what your point is and what your objective is here. It’s pretty clear what Koot means by “mass shootings” and it’s pretty well understood by everyone that solving the problem of mass shooting, gun violence, and gun prevalence in America is a tough problem that’s going to take a long time to crack.
There are lots of guns.
Lots of criminals use guns.
Lots of difficulty solving gun problem.
Got it.
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
What kind of mass shootings? Definitions vary dramatically.
The study cited in the NYT article defines a mass shooting as “multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms — not including the offender(s) — within one event, and at least some of the murders occurred in a public location or locations in close geographical proximity (e.g., a workplace, school, restaurant, or other public settings), and the murders are not attributable to any other underlying criminal activity or commonplace circumstance (armed robbery, criminal competition, insurance fraud, argument, or romantic triangle).”
That’s also how the FBI defines a mass shooting. And it matches what most of us think of when we hear the term - a deranged gunman blowing away strangers in a public place.
Call those Type A mass shootings.
Wait a minute. No offense to you since you're quoting something/someone else, but you need the people to die to consider it a mass shooting? You could shoot 50 people, none die, so it's not a mass shooting? What would you call it?
I think most people would consider 4 or more people killed a mass murder, or mass killing. 4 or more people shot, regardless if they die or not a mass shooting.
If you're only considering people that die a mass shooting that is extremely misleading, to put it mildly.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to KootenayFlamesFan For This Useful Post:
There's a big difference between walking around with a pistol on your belt and an AR slung over your shoulder. I don't think anyone's walking around like Rambo and nobody's saying anything or calling 911.
Might call 911, but if the police do anything they end up getting sued by the 2A auditors.
As mentioned earlier, they couldn't even pass background checks for sales at gun fairs or private sales after Sandy Hook
It is, IMO, one of the bedrock issues that has created division and anger in the US political system...It's a wedge issue, the tip of the culture war spear along with a woman's right to choose and race...
At this point, I would be stunned if any kind of legislation is passed, federally at least, especially with the current make up of the SCOTUS.
As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, there's a higher chance the US would close schools before imposing gun control...
And that is an utter travesty
The Following User Says Thank You to oldschoolcalgary For This Useful Post:
Wait a minute. No offense to you since you're quoting something/someone else, but you need the people to die to consider it a mass shooting? You could shoot 50 people, none die, so it's not a mass shooting? What would you call it?
I think most people would consider 4 or more people killed a mass murder, or mass killing. 4 or more people shot, regardless if they die or not a mass shooting.
If you're only considering people that die a mass shooting that is extremely misleading, to put it mildly.
FWIW, that’s the study used by the NYT story you linked to. The one where most mass shootings use legal firearms came from. So yes, most of the 5-8 mass shootings a year under that narrow criteria use legal firearms. Most of the hundreds of other mass shootings do not. Which is important to understand when talking about causes and solutions.
But what’s really misleading is when the media follow up a story about a lunatic gunning down strangers in public with statements like “this was the tenth mass shooting in the U.S. this month,” implying that it was the tenth time in the last month that a lunatic stalked a public space with a rifle gunning down everyone he saw.
Lumping together different crimes with different perpetrators, contexts, means, and motives makes it harder to actually address an extremely difficult and complex problem.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
It only makes it harder if all you’re trying to stop is the instances of lunatics gunning down strangers with rifles and you happen to be one of the few people with both the power to address the issue and the unfortunate condition of getting the entirety of your information on the subject from the narrowly worded media sources you’re referring to.
Lumping together different crimes with different perpetrators, contexts, means, and motives makes it harder to actually address an extremely difficult and complex problem.
Complex issues are issues that are faced in multiple countries. Issues like the 2008 financial collapse, the Covid pandemic, ISIS, supply side inflation etc. Issues that only affect one country because by a vote of 5-4 the Supreme Court of that country invented a constitutional right are not complex, they are issues that only that country has to deal with. A simple approach would be to look at what all the other countries that do not have the level of gun violence do in regards to guns and replicate that. What makes it complex is the baffling mindset that it is a complex problem.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Aarongavey For This Useful Post:
Lumping together different crimes with different perpetrators, contexts, means, and motives makes it harder to actually address an extremely difficult and complex problem.
I don't find it that tough at all. There's a lot of mass shootings in a country where there are a lot of guns, and a lot of politicians that don't want anything to do with any kind of gun control legislation. After the mass shooting in Texas some politicians were talking about arming teachers and making schools tougher to get into. Not gun control. Arming teachers. More guns.
Lots of guns = lots of gun related deaths. Pretty easy.
I can't access that NYT article anymore, but next time there's a mass shooting with 10 people shot and 'only' 1 or 2 dead I'm going to call it a mass shooting. Because that's what it is.
The Following User Says Thank You to KootenayFlamesFan For This Useful Post:
Maybe isn't the place but has anyone else noticed that the news cycle only headlines mass shooting stories in the U.S when the democrats are in power?
I dont recall one mass shooting story during the Trump term or even Bush Jr.
I mean, I know there were mass shootings during their terms but they didn't dominate the news cycle like they do during Democrats presidential terms. Simply because of all the massive hand waving and jedi mind tricks the Trump and bush Jr terms had. George Floyd, 9/11, WMD Iraq.
__________________ "Everybody's so desperate to look smart that nobody is having fun anymore" -Jackie Redmond
Maybe isn't the place but has anyone else noticed that the news cycle only headlines mass shooting stories in the U.S when the democrats are in power?
I dont recall one mass shooting story during the Trump term or even Bush Jr.
I mean, I know there were mass shootings during their terms but they didn't dominate the news cycle like they do during Democrats presidential terms. Simply because of all the massive hand waving and jedi mind tricks the Trump and bush Jr terms had. George Floyd, 9/11, WMD Iraq.
I think Parkland was definitely in the news. And Vegas of course... there's so many they are had to keep track of...
the difference now is that the 'smaller' shootings like that in Philly or in Xavier might not have received as much press or sustained press
I am sure that shootings aren't getting much discussion on Fox, News Max or OAN however. Certainly no talk of gun control
Maybe isn't the place but has anyone else noticed that the news cycle only headlines mass shooting stories in the U.S when the democrats are in power?
I dont recall one mass shooting story during the Trump term or even Bush Jr.
I mean, I know there were mass shootings during their terms but they didn't dominate the news cycle like they do during Democrats presidential terms. Simply because of all the massive hand waving and jedi mind tricks the Trump and bush Jr terms had. George Floyd, 9/11, WMD Iraq.
Las Vegas was on Trump's watch, there was quite a fuss about that as I recall, I mean he shot white people at a country concert, that aint right
Las Vegas was on Trump's watch, there was quite a fuss about that as I recall, I mean he shot white people at a country concert, that aint right
Right. Perhaps I'm pondering the regularity. Seems to be one every week. I dont recall Trump or Bush JR or Sr for that matter literally saying he was sick and tired of doing presidential addresses a out these shootings like Obama did. I can't remember which one I watched but it stuck me hard how a man like Obama would just throw his hands up in the air on live T.V and just say WTF am I doing here....again. .this week.
__________________ "Everybody's so desperate to look smart that nobody is having fun anymore" -Jackie Redmond
I can't access that NYT article anymore, but next time there's a mass shooting with 10 people shot and 'only' 1 or 2 dead I'm going to call it a mass shooting. Because that's what it is.
That's fine, but the point is that it's not true, in that case, that those types of shootings are mostly carried out with legally acquired weapons. Even on the narrow definition - 4 or more people shot in the same event - there are a bunch of drive-by shootings in urban environments that qualify and are lumped in with things like Uvalde, despite the fact that those two crimes have very little in common and, therefore, would involve different changes in policy to address.
It's really not up for debate among anyone seriously discussing these issues that gun violence problems in the USA are complicated and varied. A lot of them stem from there just being "lots of guns", but gun culture in the USA is also a significant factor, which is why people always note rates of ownership in places like Norway and Finland. And that might actually be a more effective avenue than trying to solve the "lots of guns" problem, considering how many are already in circulation.
Either way, there aren't any easy solutions but there are lots of creative regulatory and legislative levers you could try to pull that could have a positive effect in terms of reducing the rate of gun killings, or there would be if there wasn't intractable political opposition to ever doing anything about it in any circumstances from a certain segment of the population.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Maybe isn't the place but has anyone else noticed that the news cycle only headlines mass shooting stories in the U.S when the democrats are in power?
I dont recall one mass shooting story during the Trump term or even Bush Jr.
I mean, I know there were mass shootings during their terms but they didn't dominate the news cycle like they do during Democrats presidential terms. Simply because of all the massive hand waving and jedi mind tricks the Trump and bush Jr terms had. George Floyd, 9/11, WMD Iraq.
I dunno, Vegas, Orlando, Sutherland Springs church, El Paso Walmart, Parkland High School got a lot of press under Trump.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Snuffleupagus For This Useful Post:
I don't find it that tough at all. There's a lot of mass shootings in a country where there are a lot of guns, and a lot of politicians that don't want anything to do with any kind of gun control legislation. After the mass shooting in Texas some politicians were talking about arming teachers and making schools tougher to get into. Not gun control. Arming teachers. More guns.
Lots of guns = lots of gun related deaths. Pretty easy.
I can't access that NYT article anymore, but next time there's a mass shooting with 10 people shot and 'only' 1 or 2 dead I'm going to call it a mass shooting. Because that's what it is.
Mass shootings of the broadest category (600+ last year, up from 400 the year before) are a big part of the violent crime wave that has become a huge election issue in the U.S. 70 per cent of Black Democrats (compared with 34 per cent of white Democrats) say addressing violent crime should be a top priority of government in the next year - presumably because they’re exposed to it far more often.
So what’s your plan for reducing gun violence in the next 12 months in communities awash in illegal handguns?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 06-05-2022 at 06:19 PM.
Mass shootings of the broadest category (600+ last year, up from 400 the year before) are a big part of the violent crime wave that has become a huge election issue in the U.S. 70 per cent of Black Democrats (compared with 34 per cent of white Democrats) say addressing violent crime should be a top priority of government in the next year - presumably because they’re exposed to it far more often.
So what’s your plan for reducing gun violence in the next 12 months in communities awash in illegal handguns?
I'm no expert, but as a layperson I'd start by cutting supply.
Stop the flow of guns currently entering the market. Enact regulations to make buying guns harder.
Then a buy back program. Something that would make it worth your effort to sell then back. 1.5x or 2x it's value. Something like that.
Get those out of society. Buy back is no questions asked. You'd be getting legal and illegal guns off the streets.
It'd be a start.
What next? Not sure, I'm not going to solve this issue watching Stranger Things, drinking a beer on my couch, one Sunday evening.
But baby steps are better than nothing.
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Maritime Q-Scout For This Useful Post:
