• 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)

In America if the shooting victims/targets survive it does not count.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of the hard-nosed football coach. A player staggers over to the sidelines, dazed and limping. The coach takes one look at him and snarls, "You're fine, get back out there."
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Yes, Hercules56 appears to be quite confused concerning the distinction between mass shootings and mass killings.


It seems Hercules56 is simply wrong concerning definitions used by the organizations I highlighted.

As for the DoJ, he has referred to a federal law that defines a mass killing as "3 or more killings in a single incident", but does not define the concept of a mass shooting.

As for the Washington Post, Wikipedia says
Mass Shooting Tracker, a crowdsourced data site cited by CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Economist, the BBC, etc., defines a mass shooting as any incident in which four or more people are shot, whether injured or killed .​
and goes on to say
Crime violence research group Gun Violence Archive, whose research is used by major American media outlets, defines a mass shooting as having a "minimum of four victims shot, either injured or killed , not including any shooter who may also have been killed or injured in the incident," differentiating between a mass shooting and mass murder and not counting shooters as victims.​
With the exception of Mother Jones, it seems the organizations Hercules56 has accused of using his own stupid definition of mass shooting are not guilty of that charge.


Yes, and those who persist in proclaiming their own personal confusion regarding the distinction between mass shootings and mass killings should be called out for their disinformation.
Click to expand...

I did not invent the definition. Its been the one used since Columbine. Everyone used it till the late 2000s. Then some folks decided to greatly and ignorantly expand the definition so as to include MANY more events, totally unrelated to what happened at Columbine and VT.

Why did they do it? To achieve a political agenda and make the phenomenon seem like a mostly brown & black problem.

And btw, according to Mother Jones's and the DOJs and the Washington Posts' own websites, they all still follow the older more accurate definition. They never changed a thing, they stayed true.

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

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/no-there-were-not-355-mass-shootings-this-year/

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/analysis-recent-mass-shootings
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
And btw, according to Mother Jones's and the DOJs and the Washington Posts' own websites, they all still follow the older more accurate definition. They never changed a thing, they stayed true.

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

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/no-there-were-not-355-mass-shootings-this-year/

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/analysis-recent-mass-shootings
Click to expand...
That Washington Post article starts out with an "Editor's Note" that says "On Oct. 30, 2023, The Post published a new project tracking mass shootings nationwide." That linked web page starts out by saying very clearly that they're talking about "mass killings", not "mass shootings".

I agree that Mother Jones misleadingly defines "mass shooting" to mean a mass killing.

Your third link is to an article written not by the DoJ, but by "Mayors Against Illegal Guns". ("The NCJRS Virtual Library contains bibliographic information and abstracts of more than 230,000 collection resources...")

A study funded by the National Institute of Justice, but not written by NIJ, claims that The Congressional Research Service defines a mass shooting as "a multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms”, not including the shooter (et cetera). That definition would seem to agree with the definition used by Mother Jones, but the study's claim appears to be incorrect because the claim traces back to the wording of Public Law 112–265, passed in 2013.

That law defines a "mass killing" but does not define a "mass shooting". That law does authorize the US Attorney General to "assist in the investigation of violent acts and shooting", where section 2(d)(1) clarifies that this includes "the investigation of mass killings and attempted mass killings."

In short, the US law you've been citing to support your definition of mass shooting does not actually define "mass shooting", and its language acknowledges the distinction between "mass killings and attempted mass killings".
 
Hercules56 said:
If we consider the Columbine and VT massacres to be the same kind of event as a gang banger drive-by in LA, we will never be able to tackle mass-shootings.
Click to expand...

We already know what the US needs to do to tackle mass shootings. A universal licensing system that keeps guns out of the hands of unsuitable people. That is how every other country manages to limit mass shootings. In those countries, it is very hard for gangs, youths, people with a history of violence and those with certain mental issues to get hold of a gun, let alone an AR15 and lots of bullets. They have control over their guns. The USA has failed to do that and there are now so many guns, and so many people who would oppose the seizures and licensing process that is needed to get control of the guns, that gun control in the US is impossible.

When even school shootings and kids killing other kids, have little to no result and there is evidence of many shootings being copy cats and inspired by past shootings, Americans should face up to their failure.

Just learn to cope with mass shootings. There is nothing you can do about them, because the solution is impossible for you to achieve.
 
Hercules56 said:
I did not invent the definition. Its been the one used since Columbine. Everyone used it till the late 2000s. Then some folks decided to greatly and ignorantly expand the definition so as to include MANY more events, totally unrelated to what happened at Columbine and VT.
Click to expand...

Why is it ignorant to apply a very broad definition to what counts as a mass shooting?

Why did they do it? To achieve a political agenda and make the phenomenon seem like a mostly brown & black problem.
Click to expand...

They did it because ignoring a large part of the problem, is ignorant.

And btw, according to Mother Jones's and the DOJs and the Washington Posts' own websites, they all still follow the older more accurate definition. They never changed a thing, they stayed true.

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

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/no-there-were-not-355-mass-shootings-this-year/

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/analysis-recent-mass-shootings
Click to expand...

Every mass shooting has one, basic, vital link. The shooter managed to get hold of guns and ammo that they should not have been able to possess. Whether it is a gang member, a youth, someone with mental issues or someone angry and out for revenge, they were all people that in every other country, it would be difficult, to nigh on impossible for them to get a gun. Only in the USA is it easy.

That is why you and others are wrong to think the solution lies in only recording some mass killings, when all mass shootings and killings are primarily split by how accurate the shooter is and the opportunities for people to escape.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
....
In short, the US law you've been citing to support your definition of mass shooting does not actually define "mass shooting", and its language acknowledges the distinction between "mass killings and attempted mass killings".
Click to expand...

A mass shooting is an attempted mass killing, where the shooter was not accurate and people had more opportunity to escape. A mass murder is a mass shooting where the shooter is more accurate and people have less chance to escape.

To only consider one type of "mass" as worthy of recording and consideration, is merely a tactic to ignore much of the problem.
 
Nessie said:
Compare like for like, and countries around the Western World, and the USA stands out as the firearms death capital. You are right that more guns should not necessarily mean more murders. The issues are that

1 - the USA has lost control of many of its guns, so that a lot of people who should not have access to firearms do so. No other country allows that level of easy access.

2 - the number of rapid, multiple fire weapons that are available in the US, mean that when people start to shoot, they are more likely to hit others. Mass shootings are harder when the types of gun are restricted, such as the UK, where it is shotguns and other firearms are single shot, with a maximum of three before the gun has to reloaded.
Click to expand...

Shotguns are three. Bolt rifles don't have a restriction on magazine.

Blowback .22 rimfire semi auto is also allowed.
 
One part of this is the person wielding the gun. The other part is the person manufacturing or selling the gun. Reports are, every year between 7 and 9 million firearms are manufactured in the US. Over 15 million guns are sold in the US every year. At gun shows they're sold like party favors.

[IMGW=300]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1478&pictureid=13840[/IMGW]

The organization Everytown For Gun Safety says:
Every year, the gun industry rakes in approximately $9 billion while gun violence kills more than 40,000 people in America and wounds twice as many. At a moment when gun violence has become the leading cause of death for children and teens in America.

What has protected the gun industry from accountability? The answer is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which gives the gun industry immunity from most legal accountability and is one of the biggest giveaways to private industry in American history. In fact, not a single gun manufacturer accused of negligence has gone to trial since its passage in 2005.

At the behest of the NRA, Congress also passed the Tiahrt Amendment, which limits how data about guns used in crimes can be shared, keeping the industry out of the conversation of how criminals obtain firearms. Everytown link
Click to expand...

In the UK shotguns and other firearms are single shot, with a maximum of three before the gun has to reloaded? As of right now, regulations like that have no chance in the US. The US gun industry is powerful and influential -- the US firearms industry has revenue of about $9 billion per year -- with tremendous clout in legislatures and congress. Until firearm manufacturers and gun dealers have some legal exposure for the violence and destruction their products create we (the US) aren't going to see a decrease in shootings.
 
Nessie said:
Every mass shooting has one, basic, vital link. The shooter managed to get hold of guns and ammo that they should not have been able to possess. Whether it is a gang member, a youth, someone with mental issues or someone angry and out for revenge, they were all people that in every other country, it would be difficult, to nigh on impossible for them to get a gun. Only in the USA is it easy.

That is why you and others are wrong to think the solution lies in only recording some mass killings, when all mass shootings and killings are primarily split by how accurate the shooter is and the opportunities for people to escape.
Click to expand...

Not always. Famously Breivik tried to get his weapons illegally outside Norway, only to realize, it's easier to jump through all the hoops and get them legally.
That's just a nitpick though, certainly US is not even trying.
 
Darat said:
Are you really asking such an asinine question or trying to make a/some point?
Click to expand...

I first posted this graph in 2012.

[IMGw=640]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1449450cf96892ea8a.jpg[/IMGw]

Poverty has a massive influence.

The question should be why does the US do so much worse than other countries that are more wealthy.

Note that this is a log linear plot. Log scale in the y axis
 
jimbob said:
...The question should be why does the US do so much worse than other countries that are more wealthy...
Click to expand...

Honest answer (IMO): we are culturally acclimated across the board to solve problems by +/- killing them, not working together for the common good. It's how we handle problems big and small.
 
Dr.Sid said:
Not always. Famously Breivik tried to get his weapons illegally outside Norway, only to realize, it's easier to jump through all the hoops and get them legally.
That's just a nitpick though, certainly US is not even trying.
Click to expand...

The majority of UK mass shootings have been by people who were in lawful possession of their weapons. That still means the licensing system is 99.99% plus accurate, which is as accurate as any licensing system can be. There have been no mass shootings by gang members, youths or people with a criminal record that included crimes of violence.
 
Nessie said:
The majority of UK mass shootings have been by people who were in lawful possession of their weapons. That still means the licensing system is 99.99% plus accurate, which is as accurate as any licensing system can be. There have been no mass shootings by gang members, youths or people with a criminal record that included crimes of violence.
Click to expand...

Yes, I just protest the word "every". Czech Republic has relatively open access to firearms (compared to the rest of EU) with decent licensing system. IHMO it's the least US should do.
Even so it would take decades for effects to show.
 
arthwollipot said:
Also, are you all still arguing about how many dead bodies on the floor it takes to give it a particular label?
Click to expand...
Yes,it's a way to avoid actually dealing with the reasons underlying the exeptional USAian homicide rate, i.e. lack of proper healthcare access, a culture that glorifies violence, massive powerty and economic inequality, et cetera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom