|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:* pellet gun shootings The source for the 355 mass shootings does not include a single incident involving pellet/BB guns. It includes 355 incidents where at least 4 people were shot (with bullets, truly a rare occurrence in America, I know), which is the most widely used definition for "mass shooting". Apparently in the past, they accidentally included a single BB gun incident, which they removed when they realized it involved BB guns. So you and other people who smugly bring that poo poo up whenever the 350+ number is mentioned, should probably stop.
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 10:53 |
|
|
JohnGalt posted:We can still be totally smug, mostly because the 350+ number was called bullshit by an author from the ultra conservative mother jones news. Who cares what the gently caress mother Jones says? They simply decided to use a different definition for "mass shooting" than most other people.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:Who is "most other people"? Because the FBI was the standard before whatever Reddit burped up gained traction. And that was four fatalities, not wounded, in an indiscriminate attack, in a public place. You're right, I was wrong to say it's the definition that "most other people" use, but it is a pretty widely accepted definition, and one that I've known about personally for a couple years now. For example, it's the definition at the top of this wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shooting quote:Mass shooting refers to an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence. Mass shooting is commonly defined as the shooting, but not necessarily murder, of four or more people with no cooling off period. Yeah I know, wikipedia. In fact, that same article claims that the FBI defines a mass shooting as having at least 4 deaths, but as far as I can tell the FBI actually has no definition for "mass shooting". They do have one for "mass murderer" (as quoted in the motherjones article in question), which requires at least four killings in one incident, and many people (such as the people at motherjones and some wikipedia editors) appear to now be conflating that with "mass shooting", despite the fact that a shooting doesn't always end in a death. And confusingly, the FBI also appears to define a "mass killing" as having 3+ deaths. So if the FBI definition of "mass" in regards to murder is four (or maybe 3), then it sounds very reasonable that people could define a mass shooting as having at least four victims too (not necessarily dead, of course). There is no single agreed upon definition which is why this debate exists, but I can't shake the feeling that some people are purposely using a definition that requires a bunch of dead people, simply so they can say "actually america has very few mass shootings  ".[quote="LogisticEarth" post=""453552514"]Really the numbers on shootingtracker are not useful for understanding what most people think of as a mass shooting event. Including crime/gang related events as well as domestic murder-suicides doesn't make any sense as they are all distinct types of events. [/quote] I disagree. How do you know what most people consider a mass shooting? Personally, I consider any time a bunch of people get shot to be one (and i go by the 4+ victim definition...gotta have some kind of standard). What difference does it make if it was domestic terrorism, domestic violence, a crazy dude rampaging around, gang warfare, drug related, robbery, or due to a drunken argument or whatever? If a mass of people get shot, that's a mass shooting. But motherjones seems to only want to include incidents where people die (why not call it mass murders then?), and which involve terrorists and psychos randomly gunning people down (no gang/robbery/domestic violence related stuff), and they also "generally" excluded incidents with more than one shooter...except for the ones they decided to include, like San Bernardino. They can't even stay consistent with their own definition, but this is supposedly the more accurate definition we should now use? It just doesn't make sense to me to define it like that. Earlier this year four people were shot dead in a parked car in my city. But because it's suspected to be related to gangs/drugs, I'm not supposed to call it what it is?  Now if you want to talk about mass murder, of course there's gonna be a lot less of them than there are mass shootings. Rah! fucked around with this message at 04:57 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
wiffle ball bat posted:i dont bloody understand them either op but anyone who thinks the us had 350+ mass shootings this year is a goddamn moron with no critical thinking skills and soft runny stool where pink and grey fatty brain matter should be. Sounds like you don't know what a mass shooting is. Edit: let me help you out, as you seem to be pretty dumb: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shooting quote:Mass shooting refers to an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence. Mass shooting is commonly defined as the shooting, but not necessarily murder, of four or more people with no cooling off period. Rah! fucked around with this message at 12:21 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 12:09
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I don't think you'll get a lot of people with this but focusing on poo poo like hi-points and these .32 pocket pistols that actually end up being used for most gun crime as opposed to things like AR-15s which are almost never used for this would be a start. "A lot less frequently" doesn't mean "almost never"...just saying. Handguns may be way more common, but I can remember quite a few incidents just from my city alone, in the past decade, where criminals were caught with a rifle like an AR, AK, or SKS (which they used to shoot people in some cases). And it's not like I'm religiously paying attention to the news/police blotters either. "Almost never" suggests to me that it would happen like once per decade or something, like one step up from being a unicorn. But I agree that the focus on "scary assault rifles" like AR-15s and such is pretty dumb when handguns make up the vast, vast, majority of weapons used. And even more so, because the real things to address in order to combat gun violence, are poverty (working on this would fight all violence/crime, of course), poor mental health care (would also help against all crime), inadequate background checks, the gun show loophole, and straw purchases. A mandatory gun safety class for any first-time buyer might be a good idea too, to help keep retards from accidentally shooting themselves/their friends in the nuts. I think people who want an AR should be able to buy one. People who are insane or have a violent criminal record should not be able to buy any gun though. wiffle ball bat posted:Thanks Wikipedia for comparing pellet gun attacks to an elementary school full of dead children. That's very helpful. Useful numbers, if you're a pedantic moron trying to score political points but less so if you want to actually understand he phenomenon. The 350+ number doesn't include a single pellet gun incident. Maybe if you actually read the thread you would know that. Also, "mass shooting" and "mass murder" are not the same thing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 10:53 |
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:
Well that's not surprising. The fact remains that there is no single agreed upon definition of "mass shooting", so we might as well make up ridiculous criteria for it, just like motherjones. Let's make the definition at least 500 people shot dead by a paraplegic rodeo clown. See, America has never had a mass shooting.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 20:24
|
|