• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Today's Mass Shooting (part 3)

Hercules56 said:
I go by the definition that Mother Jones, the DOJ, USA Today and the Washington Post follow. A shooting event where 4+ people are shot & killed, not including the shooter.
Click to expand...

Mother Jones considers three killed the base line.
Readers may wonder why this database does not include the New York City subway shooting on April 12, 2022, the school shooting in Washington, DC, on April 22, 2022, or other such attacks in which fewer than three victims died. Mother Jones link
Click to expand...

In January 2013 Congress passed the "Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012." The Act stipulates:
DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this subsection—
‘‘(A) the term ‘mass killings’ means 3 or more killings in a single incident. Congress dot gov link
Click to expand...
The Washington Post does define it as four or more killed.
The data tracks mass killings — which are defined as incidents in which four or more people are killed within a 24-hour period — regardless of the circumstances or where the incident occurred. Washington Post link
Click to expand...

USA Today also uses four or more killed as the baseline.
However, our database is broader in other ways. It includes every mass killing since 2006 from all weapons in which four or more people, excluding the offender, were killed within a 24-hour time frame. USA Today link
Click to expand...
'
The Post, USA Today and DOJ use the term 'mass killing,' while Mother Jones uses 'mass shooting.' But that this has even become an issue speaks volumes about gun violence in the US. :(
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
That's a really unfair and ignorant thing to say. They have very intelligent and logical reasons for follow the definition used since Columbine and Virginia Tech.

They don't think we should politicize such issues so as to score ideological points.
Click to expand...

The prevalence of guns, and subsequent horrendous number of shootings, in the USA is entirely due to American politics.
 
newyorkguy said:
Mother Jones considers three killed the base line.


In January 2013 Congress passed the "Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012." The Act stipulates:

The Washington Post does define it as four or more killed.


USA Today also uses four or more killed as the baseline.

'
The Post, USA Today and DOJ use the term 'mass killing,' while Mother Jones uses 'mass shooting.' But that this has even become an issue speaks volumes about gun violence in the US. :(
Click to expand...

WashPo calls it a "mass-shooting".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/mass-shootings-in-america/

4+ killed in same shooting.
 
The Post apparently uses both terms.
Since the beginning of 2023, guns have been used in 35 mass killings in the United States. We use the term “mass killing” to describe events in which four or more people died, not including the perpetrators. These violent episodes have occurred on average 24 times per year since 2006, killing 2,411 people in all. Washington Post link (may be paywalled)
Click to expand...
 
Norman Alexander said:
Because in American parlance, a shooting means a gun death. Whereas in the rest of the world, it means a gun was fired at someone.
Click to expand...

If the USA counted every time someone fired multiple shots at others as a mass shooting, then the number of mass shootings would be so off the scale it is not true.

The UK not only has very few mass shootings where lots of people die, it also has very few instances where someone fires lots of bullets in one incident. The UK also has very few instances where gangs are responsible for mass shootings, or bank robbers, or the mentally ill, or deranged people seeking revenge. That's what happens when there is successful gun control.

The USA has all of the above. Gangs, bank robbers, kids, etc are all responsible for mass shootings. It permeates society.

Hercules56 wants to dodge that and make the definition of mass shooting such that it falsely appears to be not as large a problem and failure of American society as it really is.
 
Nessie said:
If the USA counted every time someone fired multiple shots at others as a mass shooting, then the number of mass shootings would be so off the scale it is not true.

The UK not only has very few mass shootings where lots of people die, it also has very few instances where someone fires lots of bullets in one incident. The UK also has very few instances where gangs are responsible for mass shootings, or bank robbers, or the mentally ill, or deranged people seeking revenge. That's what happens when there is successful gun control.

The USA has all of the above. Gangs, bank robbers, kids, etc are all responsible for mass shootings. It permeates society.

Hercules56 wants to dodge that and make the definition of mass shooting such that it falsely appears to be not as large a problem and failure of American society as it really is.
Click to expand...
IOW, redefine it out of existence, thus making it more personally acceptable.
 
Nessie said:
If the USA counted every time someone fired multiple shots at others as a mass shooting, then the number of mass shootings would be so off the scale it is not true.

The UK not only has very few mass shootings where lots of people die, it also has very few instances where someone fires lots of bullets in one incident. The UK also has very few instances where gangs are responsible for mass shootings, or bank robbers, or the mentally ill, or deranged people seeking revenge. That's what happens when there is successful gun control.

The USA has all of the above. Gangs, bank robbers, kids, etc are all responsible for mass shootings. It permeates society.

Hercules56 wants to dodge that and make the definition of mass shooting such that it falsely appears to be not as large a problem and failure of American society as it really is.
Click to expand...

Your accusations against the DoJ, Mother Jones and the Washington Post are sad, but understandable. Everything is totally political these days. Anyone who has a different standard or definition is attacked and vilified.
 
Norman Alexander said:
IOW, redefine it out of existence, thus making it more personally acceptable.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, the aim and clearly the result of these new watered-down and greatly expanded definition of "mass-shooting" is to:

-make the number of mass-shootings seem much larger than it really is

-make mass-shootings seem like its not an issue of mental illnesses & troubled individuals.

-make it look like black & brown people are responsible for the vast majority of mass-shootings.
 
Hercules56 said:
-make it look like known that is not white people, but, in fact, that it is black & brown people who are responsible for the vast majority of mass-shootings.
Click to expand...


FTFY

At least that's what I'm doing. GVA, I believe, is using their current definition as a way to highlight the number of mass shootings in hopes to enact "gun-control."
 
jeremyp said:
Twelve mass shootings in a year in my country would not be described as "only". Words like "catastrophic" would be used.
Click to expand...

You are right. 12 mass-shootings in the USA in one year, following the wise and intelligent definition of the DoJ, Mother Jones and the Washington Post, is indeed a terrible tragedy. Hopefully sociologists, criminologists and politicians can come together to deal with this phenomenon, that is truly different than some gang-banger or bank robber shooting 4+ people.
 
Hercules56 said:
Ah, so the shooter's mental health, history, his motivations, what spurred him on, how he got the gun, none of that matters. Its ALLLL the same. Cuz gunz bad.

Did you get your PhD in Forensic Psychology from Harvard or Yale?
Click to expand...

The beauty of gun control is that it works by seeking to deprive the murderer of their guns no matter what their motivation.
 
jeremyp said:
The beauty of gun control is that it works by seeking to deprive the murderer of their guns no matter what their motivation.
Click to expand...

Disregarding the uniqueness of the mass-shooter phenomenon, and making believe its simply a criminal with a gun, will only hurt our society. And make it seem as though this is mostly a criminal black & brown problem.
 
Hercules56 said:
You are right. 12 mass-shootings in the USA in one year, following the wise and intelligent definition of the DoJ, Mother Jones and the Washington Post, is indeed a terrible tragedy. Hopefully sociologists, criminologists and politicians can come together to deal with this phenomenon, that is truly different than some gang-banger or bank robber shooting 4+ people.
Click to expand...

The sociologists and criminologists can deal with whatever problem they choose. Just because the DoJ or Mother Jones has some definition doesn't mean they have to concentrate on exactly that set of murders.
 
Hercules56 said:
Disregarding the uniqueness of the mass-shooter phenomenon, and making believe its simply a criminal with a gun, will only hurt our society. And make it seem as though this is mostly a criminal black & brown problem.
Click to expand...

No.

Gun control done properly works. It reduces the number of killings. Gun control will have an effect on the psycho nutcase mass shooters and the criminals (whatever colour their skin).
 
jeremyp said:
No.

Gun control done properly works. It reduces the number of killings. Gun control will have an effect on the psycho nutcase mass shooters and the criminals (whatever colour their skin).
Click to expand...

I have some bad news for you: We will not ban guns in the USA. The current trajectory in the USA is for looser gun laws, not stronger.

Maybe in 30 years things will be different.

That's why we need to focus on other solutions, especially when dealing with mass-shootings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom